Here’s something you probably don’t realize about how Hollywood works. I know I wasn’t familiar with it. But it turns out that, for some of the biggest franchises in the industry, studios often sign “use-it-or-lose-it agreements.” What this means is that they buy the rights to a franchise for a certain number of years. But if they fail to make any progress towards making a film after a while, then they run the risk of losing the rights entirely. So studios can’t buy the rights to a major franchise, and then take a long time figuring out what kind of movie they’re going to make. They’re under pressure to produce content quickly. For “Spider-Man,” for example, Sony committed to begin production on new films within “3 years and 9 months of their last release, and they must get it into theaters within 5 years and 9 months of their last release.”
This has been standard in the industry for a long time. The very first film adaptation of “The Hobbit” was made in 1967.
The film was just 12 minutes long, and was produced in less than a month.
Source: RembrantFilms/YouTube.com
You can see the quality of the animation, or lack thereof. It’s really just a few drawings that the camera zooms in on. The only reason for the film’s existence was to allow the producer to keep the license to “The Lord of the Rings,” so that he could sell it back to the Tolkien estate for a $100,000 profit. So he scrambled to put together this atrocious production — where the One Ring doesn’t even do anything, and the animation doesn’t animate — in order to hold onto the rights. More recently, New Line Cinema acquired the rights to the film adaptations of “The Lord of the Rings” — and it cost them a lot more than $100,000.
But the same general rule applies to New Line Cinema: New Line is compelled to pump out new “Lord of the Rings” content, or else they’ll lose the deal. It doesn’t matter how bad or pointless the content may be. They’re contractually forced to have something in motion.
That’s why, in 2024, something called “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” was released. You’ve probably never heard of this film. Apparently it was some kind of “anime.”
Source: New Line Cinema/Warner Bros. Animation.
And as you can see from this poster, the protagonist was a woman — the “fiercely independent daughter of the legendary King of Rohan.” For obvious reasons, no one watched this film. No one liked it. It wasn’t actually based on anything in the books. They took a no-name character from a footnote in an appendix of “Return of the King,” and they made her the protagonist. And they wrote a script very quickly, too. According to Variety, “The animated film was developed and fast-tracked to ensure that New Line Cinema didn’t lose the film adaptation rights for Tolkien’s novels while Jackson and the teams behind the ‘Lord of the Rings’ and ‘Hobbit’ trilogies were working on two new live-action films for 2026 and beyond.”
The first of those live-action films has been titled “The Hunt for Gollum.” It’s slated to come out next year. Everyone already knows it will be horrible, because it has no reason to exist. There’s a reason Tolkien didn’t devote much time to this particular series of events in the books — it’s simply not that interesting. It’s also a prequel with absolutely no stakes, because we all know how the story turns out. We know Gollum is captured and gets away, and then the next movie happens.
But they have to make “The Hunt for Gollum,” or else they’ll lose the movie rights. They’re contractually obligated to pump this garbage out. They can’t take ten years and come up with a compelling or interesting film. They have to produce it right now. And then once they’re done with this one, they need to have a follow-up in the pipeline. The pace is relentless, by design. And here’s the key point: While the studios would prefer that the movies do well, that’s actually a secondary objective. Their primary goal is to simply get a movie out — any movie — so that they can hold onto the rights for as long as possible.
And the so-called “creative team” — the writers and the executives — understand that mandate very well. They know that, when executives are desperate for a film, it’s extremely easy to inject obvious, lazy feminist propaganda into an established story. And that’s exactly what’s happening now to “The Lord of the Rings.” It was evident in that atrocious “anime” film that no one watched. And it’s especially evident in the new “Lord of the Rings” film that’s going to be written primarily by Stephen Colbert and his nepo baby son. (Which — already — gives the game away. Colbert’s only relevant experience for this gig is that he destroyed late-night television, which used to be a major part of American culture. And precisely because of that recent experience — not in spite of it — Colbert has been brought onboard to obliterate the relevance of “Lord of the Rings,” one of the great landmarks in Western literature).
Watch:
🚨 BREAKING NEWS 🚨
Peter Jackson is teaming up with Stephen Colbert to create a NEW Lord of the Rings movie!
This will be centered around the 6 chapters early in the Fellowship of the Ring that weren’t developed in Peter Jacksons movies from “Three Is Company” to “Fog on the… pic.twitter.com/urifnuL2V3
— The Mellon Heads – LOTR Podcast (@mellon_heads) March 25, 2026
Source: @mellon_heads/X.com
We’re supposed to trust this whole project because Colbert is allegedly a “superfan” of the books. He’s really keen on all the little details of the “canon.” One of the problems here — aside from the fact that Colbert can’t even write one-liners on Late night, much less a screenplay — is that Colbert claims to be a Catholic, but he doesn’t take any of those “canonical” teachings seriously at all. He’s pro-abortion and pro-gender insanity, and he openly mocks Catholics all of the time. So you probably shouldn’t hold your breath if you think Stephen Colbert, of all people, is going to take any text seriously — even if he claims to be a “fan.”
But even if you trust Stephen Colbert for some reason, and even if you don’t know anything about “Lord of the Rings” at all, think about what he just said for a second. He’s saying that there are six chapters in “The Fellowship of the Ring,” which, “could be its own story which could fit into the larger story.” But that’s exactly what these chapters already are. They’re six chapters in the larger story. They aren’t a story all by themselves. And those six chapters are so unimportant, relative to the rest of the book, that they were mostly — but not entirely — dropped from the Peter Jackson films. There was no Tom Bombadil in the films, for example.
But now we’re supposed to believe that these six chapters — and Tom Bombadil — are actually a self-contained story that justify an entirely new film. So how will that work, exactly? What’s the “framing device” that Stephen Colbert is talking about? If you pull up the logline for this doomed project, here’s what you’ll find. “Fourteen years after the passing of Frodo — Sam, Merry and Pippin set out to retrace the first steps of their adventure. Meanwhile, Sam’s daughter, Elanor, has discovered a long-buried secret and is determined to uncover why the War of the Ring was very nearly lost before it even began.”
Translating that, we can assume that, just like the anime, and just like the Amazon “Rings of Power” series that no one likes, this is going to be yet another piece of feminist propaganda, designed to destroy one of the most unapologetically male-dominated stories in Western literature. They’re going to have Sam’s daughter go off and save the world or whatever, telling a story through flashbacks. These people know that “Lord of the Rings” had almost no female characters at all. And Modern Hollywood sees that fact as a sin that must be rectified. They’re intent on feminizing the franchise and injecting female characters into it. They’ve decided that Tolkien’s almost exclusively male story must be retold through a feminist lens. Effectively, it’s feminist reparations. And if it bombs, they don’t care. Win or lose, as long as they put something in theaters, they get to hold onto the rights for a little while longer.
At this point, you might think — well, so what. Hollywood’s been terrible for a while, and no one cares about mainstream movies anymore, especially young people. First of all, to the extent that’s true, it’s still a major victory for the Left. They exist to demoralize as many Americans as possible. But more importantly, this is not simply a Hollywood project. What’s happening to the “Lord of the Rings” is emblematic of a much broader trend, which amounts to the deliberate, coordinated mass-feminization of American culture. Everything has to be feminine now. Men can’t have their own “spaces,” to use the lingo. Men are denigrated and discriminated against as a matter of policy. At the same time, women — as well as emasculated men who claim to be women — are elevated and promoted at every opportunity.
There’s no better illustration of this phenomenon than what’s happened to the Boy Scouts. They’re gone now. As of 2025, the Boy Scouts have rebranded as “Scouting America,” after several years of accepting girls and homosexuals. Yes, they were accepting girls into the “Boy Scouts,” supposedly as a way to boost membership.
Meanwhile, the Girl Scouts still exist — and according to their website as of today, they don’t allow boys to join. So girls have a gender-specific “scouting” organization to join, and boys don’t.
Watch:
Source: 9News/YouTube.com
Source: Associated Press/YouTube.com
He says the reason they accepted girls into the Boy Scouts is that membership was too low. Which is really a remarkable statement. It’s like a goat farmer who says, “huh, I don’t have enough goats on the property. Time to bring in some wolves, so that I get my numbers up.”
Actually, if membership is low, the solution isn’t to destroy the organization. Nor is the solution to promote “gay Scouts” and hold “LGBTQ” struggle sessions or whatever. The solution is to build an organization in which parents — not random pedophiles — organize outdoor activities that are actually interesting to young men.
It’s quite possible that Democrats would sue over that — since every good idea is a civil rights violation — but it would’ve been worth a try. Instead, they’ve simply eliminated the Boy Scouts entirely, while the Girl Scouts continue to exist without any problems.
One of the reasons this is happening is that, even with the rise of gender insanity, most people (outside of states like Washington and California) can agree that it’s important for girls to have their own private “spaces.” When males invade a female space, it clearly makes girls less safe and robs them of opportunity. That’s just a matter of basic biological reality — a male in a female’s locker room poses a much greater threat than a female in a male’s locker room. You don’t need to affirm any unpopular ideas or commit transgressions against feminism to make the point.
But the argument for keeping women out of male spaces is more dangerous. The point isn’t that men are made less safe or that the women will out-compete them. The point is first that men are more suited for these roles and generally better at them. If you did an honest survey of the 10,000 people in the world most suited to be astronauts or military generals, all 10,000 will be men. And we all know that. Second, when you wedge women into an institution, you destroy the male fraternal camaraderie. Women are inevitably scandalized by how men relate to one another. And so their inclusion means that everyone now has to start acting like chicks.
We saw this play out with the various female defectors from the MAGA movement, like Ashley St. Claire. These women showed up to a heavily male space, immediately got their feelings hurt because men are acting and speaking like men, and then went crying about it and demanding that changes are made to better accommodate them. So that’s why people are less eager to make the case for male-only spaces. It requires you to be more honest than most people are prepared to be.
In fact, even in the Girls’ Scouts, they’re not being entirely honest about their position. They have an obvious problem to confront: the Left now defines a “girl” as “anyone who claims to be a girl.” So how exactly do the Girl Scouts prevent a male pervert from saying he’s a girl from taking advantage of the situation? As it turns out, that dilemma came up a few years ago.
Here’s how they handled it:
Notice what’s happening here. The Girl Scouts know that they can’t have boys inside the girl’s spaces. But they also know that, if they say that out loud, they’ll get bankrupted by lawsuits from trans activists. So instead, they make you “read between the lines.” They leave the decision up to individual chapters and parents — which is to say, they don’t make a decision at all. They’re hoping that fathers will be enough of a deterrent — which may or may not be the case.
The point is, this is how convoluted and backwards our institutions have become. They’re more feminine than ever, even as the words “boy” and “girl” lose all meaning to the Left. The more powerful the gender industry becomes, the more universally feminine our culture becomes. And unequivocally, that’s a bad thing.
We’ll start with the data on some of the institutions that have been feminized in this country. Women now substantially outnumber men in both medical schools and law schools. That was never the case prior to 2019 and 2016, respectively. These are two professions with very demanding hours — the kind that make it very difficult to raise a family. And there’s an obvious premium on logic over emotion. And yet, because of systematic discrimination against men, women are now dominating these fields. The same is true of pharmacy, dentistry, optometry, veterinary medicine, and psychology — all of which were male-dominated in the 1960s and 70s, and all of which are now overwhelmingly controlled by women. Something like 75% of psychologists are women now — when in the 1970s, it was closer to 20 to 30%.
Outside of these fields (which are mostly medical in nature), the trend continues. 62% of the writers on streaming shows are women, according to a study from San Diego State University. And when it comes to casting, women typically play the characters who are highly moral and competent, while the white men are dysfunctional terrorists. This is just one of about a million examples, from a recent BBC show.
Watch:
The BBC aired a show where the villain is a white dude who filed freedom of information requests about illegal migration.
They then show him laying on a beach with a rifle, waiting to shoot them as they arrive by boat.
Just next-level propaganda. pic.twitter.com/gGwzQuNWCb
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) March 26, 2026
Source: @bonchieredstate
“Nine freedom of information requests??” My Goodness.
And then there’s the part where he gets banned on 4Chan for posting a selfie video, which makes no sense for at least three reasons: One, no one posts selfie videos on 4Chan. Two, no one has an “account” on 4Chan that can get “banned.” And three, even if 4Chan did ban “accounts” for posting selfie videos, they definitely wouldn’t ban someone for criticizing foreign migration to Europe. That’s about as tame as it gets. But for the women who write this show, and produce it, and star in it, none of these issues matter. What’s important is that the white guy is a terrorist because he wants access to government data on the number of murders that foreign invaders are committing.
But let’s continue, because streaming is just one example of this phenomenon. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 66% of PR specialists are women. So we’ve come a very long way from the “Mad Men” era, to put it mildly. Union management gigs transformed into so-called “Human Resources Departments,” which as we all know, are controlled entirely by women. Even a profession like “accounting and auditing” — which you’d expect to be male-dominated because it involves numbers — is now 59% female, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Actually, if you have the time, I’d encourage you to pull up the Labor statistics website yourself, to see how stark this transformation is. You’d have an easier time finding jobs where women are the minority, at this point. Women are the majority of management professionals, business and financial operations specialists, judges, librarians, paralegals, medical scientists, “Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations,” healthcare practitioners, insurance sales, school bus drivers, mental health counselors, claims adjusters, “quality assurance specialists” in computer software, advertising and promotions managers, budget analysts, insurance underwriters, social workers, post-secondary teachers (and every other kind of teacher), interior designers, event planners, credit counselors and loan officers, business managers, and so on. Half a century ago, most of these fields looked very, very different.
And in response you might say — well, that’s what progress looks like! Now that women are in charge, everything’s better.
But that would be a lie, because everything isn’t better. Quite the contrary.
I would challenge you to name one institution, anywhere in existence, that has gotten better — more effective, efficient, productive — as it has gotten more feminized. Out of all those professions I just listed, have any of them improved in the past few decades, to your knowledge?
Do you think advertising is better now, for example? Do you think Don Draper could learn some lessons from the women who permanently demolished the image of Cracker Barrel and Bud Light?
What about the insurance industry, or therapy? Have there been any breakthroughs there — aside from the coordinated effort to diagnose every child with some form of mental illness, so they can be given drugs for the rest of their lives?
And how about judges — do you think they’re doing a better job now? Unless you’re a fan of criminals who repeatedly get out of jail — including criminals who literally murder children while they sleep (which we saw in the Ronald Exantus case, for example) — then you’d be hard-pressed to praise the changes in the judicial branch in this country.
So what’s gotten better, exactly? Space travel certainly hasn’t. Astronauts were 100% male in 1969 when they were landing on the moon. Today, every graduating class at NASA is roughly 50% female, and NASA basically hasn’t done anything in 20 years. Seriously, if you can think of anything I’m missing, let me know. I’m not being sarcastic. But the more we see women getting placed in positions where they obviously don’t belong, the more important the question becomes.
Consider what’s just happened over at the so-called Church of England. This is a Protestant church that, long ago, decided to promote “LGBT clergy,” female clergy, gay marriage and so on. For nearly two years, the role of archbishop of Canterbury — the highest-ranking cleric of the Church of England — has remained vacant. And no one has really cared. The Protestants in England managed to make themselves totally irrelevant by disregarding scripture and embracing every trendy tenet of Leftism, to the point that they just left the role of archbishop vacant, and it wasn’t a big deal. The tens of millions of baptized members of the church weren’t bothered by it.
But the other day, at long last, a new archbishop was named. And for the first time ever, appropriately enough, the archbishop is a woman. The Church of England is now officially led, on a day-to-day basis, by a pro-abortion, pro-open borders Leftist with absolutely zero regard for Scripture.
Watch:
🇬🇧 Dame Sarah Mullally is officially “enthroned” as the Archbishop of Canterbury, becoming the first woman to take the role.
Follow: @europa pic.twitter.com/VRXOHp2d4C
— Europa.com (@europa) March 25, 2026
Source: @europa/X.com
Well, at least she’s happy. It’s one of the great tricks of the modern Left that they demand — and receive — thunderous applause as they degrade everything they touch. These are people who insist on “inclusivity” that goes in only one direction — inclusivity that disenfranchises men and elevates incompetence on the basis of gender.
It’s no great mystery how this happens. Put simply, there’s no one standing in their way — no resistance at all. Conservatives in the United States will rush to protect female-only spaces, which is appropriate and necessary in most cases. They’ll condemn the “Wi Spa incident,” where a man tries to force his way into a women’s locker room. But at the same time, for all of their bravery in protecting women’s spaces, very few conservatives have done anything to protect male-only spaces. They haven’t announced plans or funding for a new Boy Scout program. They haven’t brought massive lawsuits against schools and employers that discriminate against men, in the same way that they’ve sued schools and employers that discriminate against whites and Asians.
It’s maybe the single most overlooked and neglected issue in all of American culture and politics, and it’s hard to believe it’s an accident. Men, including young men, need more opportunities to participate in their shared interests, beyond social media and video games and politics. This country used to offer plenty of those opportunities. And although you aren’t supposed to say it, we were a much more cohesive, efficient and competent country as a result.
.png)
.png)
