One of the cardinal rules I have for op-ed writers is to avoid opening lines that list three newsy things before introducing the unrelated subject you want to discuss.
“With a war in Iran, rising inflation, and a looming AI apocalypse, it can be easy to forget about railroad maintenance.” Something like that. It’s lazy and cheap, like opening an essay with “since the dawn of time.”
But today, I’m breaking my own rule. Because with a war in Iran, rising inflation, and a looming AI apocalypse, people on the right seem mostly concerned with a film adaptation of “The Chronicles Of Narnia.”
Are you kidding?
“Lady Bird” director Greta Gerwig is producing a movie version of “The Magician’s Nephew” for Netflix, a project with built-in buzz thanks to Gerwig’s last film, “Barbie,” another adaptation of a classic children’s property.
Things went haywire this week when it was confirmed that Meryl Streep would voice Aslan, the titular lion from “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” and one of the protagonists of the Narnia series.
Based on how conservatives reacted to this news, you would think that Ms. Gerwig dug ol’ Clive Staples Lewis out of his grave and used his bones in an X-rated puppet show.
It’s woke! It’s an attack on Christianity! It’s poisoning the youth! Aslan is Jesus and Jesus is a man so the lion has to be a boy!
Do you hear yourselves?
Before I really get into it, let me clarify a few things this piece is not. This is not some self-righteous argument that we shouldn’t care about the adaptation of a Christian fable because Christians are being persecuted in China (although, come to think of it, that’s not a bad argument). But no, culture is important. The stories we tell ourselves matter. I actually much prefer talking about culture than about things like macroeconomics. But that’s not why this is silly.
Nor is this a Christian apologetic in which I point out that, no matter how much Greta Gerwig tries to blaspheme Our Lord, He remains the King of Kings. Although, again, the latter is definitely true. But I don’t think Greta Gerwig is trying to subvert Christianity; I think she just wanted to cast Meryl Streep. And, even if she were, having a symbolic Christ voiced by a woman is at least the fourth worst thing ever to happen to Jesus, after <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ">Piss Christ</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godspell">Godspell</a>, and, you know, the Crucifixion.
No, this freak-out is not worth our time because we’re talking about a film adaptation of a children’s book about an anthropomorphic lion.
Yes, I know Aslan is supposed to be Jesus. But he’s not. He’s a lion. And they’re different. The reason I know they’re different is that every Sunday when I take my family to church, we don’t kneel before a wooden carving of the king of the jungle.
I want to say this again, because I really don’t think conservatives who like “The Chronicles of Narnia” have internalized this. The lion is not Jesus. So, when commentator Kangmin Lee <a href="https://x.com/HumanEvents/status/2100655693850087609?s=20">says</a> the Gerwig adaptation is “a desecration of Lewis&#8217;s work,” I say: No, it’s not! You can’t desecrate that which isn’t sacred. And a fairy tale, no matter how inspired it may be by Christian teaching, is not holy.
So, no, you can’t get this mad that Greta Gerwig’s riff on Narnia is a David Bowie-inspired, gender-bent kaleidoscope. That’s what happens when you write fiction that enters the public domain or, as is the case here, is licensed to directors by the corporation that manages your estate.
It’s baffling to me that conservatives don’t get this. We Republicans are the party of reason, of reality, of “facts don’t care about your feelings.” We stand up and say that men can’t be women and criminals should go to jail and countries need secure borders and all these important things — and then we threaten to kill ourselves on social media because a hipster cast a lady to play a lion.
This isn’t just about this particular adaptation. Conservatives of a certain stripe are bafflingly obsessed with all of Lewis’s novels, as well as his pal J.R.R. Tolkien&#8217;s “The Lord of the Rings” franchise. Don’t get me wrong, I’m as nerdy as the next guy, and I like these books fine. But folks on the Right have imbued these retellings of the Bible with such meaning that they have a news cycle’s worth of a meltdown whenever someone dares change or criticize them.
This is dumb, just like it was dumb to freak out that “Hamilton” said our first Treasury secretary was a rapping Puerto Rican. Artists are generally liberal, and liberals love to do things like this. Some, like “Hamilton,” are good. Others, like most modern adaptations of Shakespeare, are bad. I don’t know where Gerwig’s “Narnia” film will fall, but I’ll tell you this: I would much rather my children watch a movie with a female Jesus lion than see any of the tantrums my fellow conservatives threw about said big cat.
Last month, liberals lost their collective mind when a golf company released an ad that depicted a man body-checking a woman. Our editor-in-chief Brent Scher rightly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/maybe-we-shouldnt-destroy-an-entire-golf-brand-over-one-dumb-ad">chastised</a> the woke mob, saying, “Did I miss the time machine back into the height of cancel culture idiocy?”
He was right then, just as I’m right now. We on the Right tend to be better than most about this stuff, but when it’s our favorite things at stake, we clutch our pearls as ferociously as any blue-haired bozo. But we are, and ought to be, better than that. Some things — most things — matter more than Greta Gerwig’s “Narnia” movie. On some level, we all know better. We should act like it.
***
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

GettyImages-454165771

Aslan Isn’t Jesus. He’s A Lion.

cancel culture

greta gerwig

meryl streep

narnia

netflix

opinion

Gangster cinema often signals a mob boss’s maturation through negotiating prowess. In Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Godfather Part II,” a newly confident Michael Corleone responds to a crooked Nevada senator trying to squeeze him with an offer of precisely nothing: “not even the fee for the gaming license,” which he expects the politician to pay himself. Season 2 of Guy Ritchie’s “The Gentlemen,” streaming on Netflix, gives Eddie Horniman (Theo James) a similar moment of criminal arrival. Negotiating with a politician, Eddie suavely settles the matter for a few thousand pounds, despite being prepared to proffer millions.
Picking up where the first season left off, Ritchie’s British-aristocracy-meets-Mafioso crossover borrows heavily from Coppola’s world and its moral order. James reprises the role of the 13th Duke of Halstead, now formally entrenched in the marijuana empire he spent the first season trying to escape, with new ambitions and seemingly unquenchable avarice.
“I want it back, Geoff. I want it all back,” he tells his loyal gamekeeper (Vinnie Jones) in the opening episode, standing beside a fleet of Range Rovers and overlooking a verdant estate already larger than most suburban neighborhoods. Eddie wants to restore his dukedom to its former glory in landmass, wealth, and reputation.
His ambitions soon extend beyond England. Stately Italian palazzos have been retrofitted into cannabis farms, bringing Eddie and Susie Glass (Kaya Scodelario) into the orbit of Mafia “boss of bosses” Marco Moretti (Sergio Castellitto). Conquering Italy is still insufficient. Eddie also sets his sights on the House of Lords, where he hopes to influence a bill decriminalizing cannabis and turn his criminal enterprise into something approaching a legitimate business. This puts him at odds with Bobby Glass (Ray Winstone), who, having apparently spent enough time in Canada to see hippie cannabis shops lining every other street corner, wants the bill buried.
The season retains its predecessor’s fixation on life’s finer indulgences. In one memorable sequence, Eddie hosts his new Italian partners at Halstead and takes them shooting — appropriately clad in tweed. The armory contains no gaudy wall of practical firearms like ARs or AKs, only a gentlemanly collection of antique shotguns made by artisans. Elsewhere, the script casually name-drops prestigious wines such as Petrus, Masseto, and Mouton. When Michele Morrone’s Cico Maldini — a criminally underused character this season — theatrically accuses Eddie of serving a corked 1989 Mouton at dinner, the writers clearly understand this is the sort of thing you can get killed for.
Yet all this elegance cannot disguise the season’s central problem. Eddie’s darker descent into ambition saps “The Gentlemen” of much of its freewheeling humour. A coked-up Freddy (Daniel Ings) being forced to dance like a chicken or impersonating an Eastern European gangster while trying to buy a sports car produced some of Season 1’s funniest scenes. Here, Eddie’s drug-addled brother spends much of the season locked away in rehab before being handed an unfortunate arc with unmistakable echoes of “The Godfather,” which I will not divulge for the sake of spoilers.
The same shift alters Eddie’s relationship with Susie. Their playful dynamic once paired her seasoned criminal maturity against his wit, nerve, and determination to find an exit. Season 2 increasingly becomes the Eddie Horniman show (he doesn’t need her guidance anymore), leaving Scodelario with scant opportunity to parry with James.
Despite the Coppola parallels, Eddie seems remarkably uninterested in furthering the Horniman lineage. Religious portent hangs over his ascent, supplied by Stanley Johnston (Giancarlo Esposito), who spends much of the season extolling Eddie’s ancestry, and the menacing biblical butcher Gospel John (Pearce Quigley). Eddie eventually marries the affluent Italian heiress Bella (Benedetta Porcaroli), a union whose business advantages are obvious, yet the romance is so thinly developed that its emotional significance never quite lands. The pair share less chemistry than Susie Glass and a pair of flats.
One welcome beneficiary of the expanded story is Geoff, whose long-clandestine affair with the Horniman matriarch finally comes into the open. His daughter Charly’s (Jasmine Blackborow) partner, Nanny (Benjamin Clementine), father of the Horniman heir Tarquin, meanwhile drifts aimlessly through much of the season (making one wonder why he is there at all) before revealing formidable military prowess in a tense and highly entertaining finale.
Eddie’s transformation is a logical progression for a man who discovered that narcotics trafficking suits him rather well. But where “Goodfellas’” Henry Hill regarded ordinary middle-class existence as a kind of hell, and Michael Corleone was drawn into the family business to protect his own, Eddie could be wafting across the Mediterranean on a yacht. He had an out. He wants the power and is as drawn to it as his brother Freddy is to cocaine.
That choice makes his descent more interesting, but the series sacrifices something in completing it. There is still plenty to enjoy in Ritchie’s impeccably tailored criminal playground. Somewhere along Eddie’s path toward conquering the underworld, however, “The Gentlemen” lost much of its fun.
***
Harry Khachatrian (<a href="https://x.com/harry1t6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@Harry1T6</a>) is a film critic for the Washington Examiner. He is a software engineer, holds a master’s degree from the University of Toronto, and writes about wine at <a href="https://www.betweenbottles.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BetweenBottles.com</a>.
 This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

TG_201_Unit_00855_RT

‘The Gentlemen’ Season 2 Takes Its Gangster Ambitions Too Seriously

arts

guy ritchie

television review

the gentlemen

This article was written by Mark J. Burns and published on <a href="https://sportandstate.com/">Sport &amp; State</a>, a new media company founded by Clay Travis that is built around sports, culture, original voices, and live conversation.
* * * * *
The NFL went Down Under in Week 1 for 49ers-Rams in its first-ever regular season contest in Australia. It had a bigger-game feel at times, if I’m being generous, to open the league’s international calendar in 2026.
“It almost has a Super Bowl kind of vibe with the energy coming into this kickoff,” said play by play caller Noah Eagle as the camera panned around the stadium to show fans holding red, white, and blue cards to illustrate the NFL logo.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
This is what it looks like in Melbourne for the 49ers vs. Rams.
Over 100,000 fans inside the Melbourne Cricket Ground.
AMAZING! 🇦🇺
LIVE now on Netflix! <a href="https://t.co/G1W5lgW8tw">pic.twitter.com/G1W5lgW8tw</a>
— Netflix Sports (@netflixsports) <a href="https://x.com/netflixsports/status/2098209703197102537?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
San Francisco quarterback Brock Purdy chopped up the Los Angeles defense for three touchdowns and 205 passing yards, while wide receiver Mike Evans recorded six catches for 49 yards and one touchdown in his 49ers debut. The 49ers won, 27-7.
Enter ‘embrace debate’ on Friday’s TV segments, as all of the pundits will quickly become experts on sleep science — <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/2026/09/nfl-australia-jet-lag-49ers-rams/688577/">if you know, you know</a>. The 49ers social media team might have won that debate on its own with a single postgame Tweet. Well done.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sleep tight 🙏 <a href="https://t.co/aQEIvkCUyh">pic.twitter.com/aQEIvkCUyh</a>
— San Francisco 49ers (@49ers) <a href="https://x.com/49ers/status/2098251590696382676?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">So, So Down Under</h2>
Meanwhile, Netflix aired the matchup, its first of five regular season broadcasts this season, as the streamer continues to invest in &#8220;live&#8221; sports — it’s one of the <a href="https://sportandstate.com/2026/09/09/wags-influencers-international-nfls-biggest-business-and-media-trends-in-2026/">biggest sports media topics</a> to follow this NFL season.
And yet, maybe Netflix could also invest in some better production quality, though I did like the picture quality and new scorebug (cue the shameless plug for my <a href="https://sportandstate.com/2026/08/28/dont-swat-the-seriousness-of-the-scorebug-inside-sports-tv-viewers-nerdiest-obsession/">in-depth feature</a> of TV sports’ viewers nerdiest obsession).
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Netflix&#8217;s 2025 Christmas NFL scorebug compared to the bug it debuted today: <a href="https://t.co/RUp3PBsNad">https://t.co/RUp3PBsNad</a> <a href="https://t.co/UEjqCOuVBW">pic.twitter.com/UEjqCOuVBW</a>
— Sports TV News &amp; Updates (@TVSportsUpdates) <a href="https://x.com/TVSportsUpdates/status/2098211725111607705?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As much as the broadcast captured beauty shots around Melbourne Cricket Ground, picturesque views of the Australian coastline, and close-ups of fans singing “Sweet Caroline,” I couldn’t help but have to continue to turn up the volume to hear Eagle and analyst Luke Kuechly over the crowd noise.
<a href="https://x.com/search?q=%22netflix%22%20%22audio%22&amp;src=typed_query&amp;f=live">And I was not alone</a>. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
TV peeps &#8211; why does this <a href="https://x.com/netflix?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@netflix</a> production feel “off” compared other <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/NFL?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NFL</a> broadcasts?<a href="https://x.com/hashtag/LARvsSF?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LARvsSF</a>
— Mac Engel (@MacEngelProf) <a href="https://x.com/MacEngelProf/status/2098214780532064516?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Netflix needs to figure out audio if they are gonna do live sports, <a href="https://x.com/RichLightShed?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RichLightShed</a>
Maybe study <a href="https://x.com/NBCSports?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NBCSports</a>
— Walter Piecyk (@WaltLightShed) <a href="https://x.com/WaltLightShed/status/2098238532942791047?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
But hey, it’s Week 1. We’re all still working out the kinks. Even Kuechly and host Elle Duncan.
Kuechly, a former NFL Defensive Player of the Year for the Panthers, clearly explained touchdowns and interceptions with the telestrator, showing his command as an analyst. I also appreciated his honesty during the 49ers’ first drive when he said he was “a little surprised” that coach Kyle Shanahan opted to attempt a chip shot field goal versus going for it on 4th and goal at the Rams’ 2-yard line. Still, he repeated words or phrases dozens of times throughout the broadcast as he tried to find the right words to finish his sentences.
With Duncan, she drew fans’ attention — and not necessarily in a good way — for her choice of clothing attire, which included a sleeveless suit and black leather gloves. Look, I’m not a self-described fashionista, but what?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Nice gloves. <a href="https://t.co/EMuwcqiTrR">pic.twitter.com/EMuwcqiTrR</a>
— Joe Kinsey (@JoeKinseyexp) <a href="https://x.com/JoeKinseyexp/status/2098196122304987173?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The former ESPNer sounded rushed at times, especially in the pregame, and wasn’t her best at being the quarterback on the desk for analysts Michael Irvin, Nick Foles, and Clay Matthews.
At times, the broadcast even felt a bit forced, almost cringe-inducing, like when Purdy, defensive lineman Nick Bosa, and linebacker Fred Warner wore kangaroo coats following the team’s victory.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
It was only right 🦘
📺: Netflix <a href="https://t.co/1i88k2xSHf">pic.twitter.com/1i88k2xSHf</a>
— San Francisco 49ers (@49ers) <a href="https://x.com/49ers/status/2098254770943525268?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Or when the <a href="https://www.indigenous.gov.au/acknowledgement-country">land acknowledgement</a> announcement came earlier in the pregame festivities.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Australia’s first ever NFL game began with a land acknowledgment. This is insane. Australia also has a national sorry day where the country apologizes to the aborigines every year. If you think the US can’t get crazier, it can. <a href="https://t.co/E5zuYY7XLR">pic.twitter.com/E5zuYY7XLR</a>
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) <a href="https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/2098219083565007310?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Yes, Netflix made NFL history Down Under on Thursday, but oddly enough, the broadcast at times felt like it was trying too hard.
The streamer has four more chances this NFL season to get it right.

San Francisco 49ers v Los Angeles Rams

NFL Goes Way Down Under With ‘Insane’ Land Acknowledgement Before Kickoff

land acknowledgement

los angeles rams

san francisco 49ers

sports

Netflix is rolling out the red carpet for the latest entry in media navel-gazing: a documentary detailing the absolute &#8220;horror&#8221; of reporters being left on a plane with the window shades lowered.
The streaming giant announced Tuesday that &#8220;Instadocs: The Decoy Plane&#8221; will premiere Friday, September 4. The documentary examines the July incident where the Secret Service pulled off a slick maneuver in Ankara, Turkey. Facing credible assassination threats from Iran against President Donald Trump, security officials quietly shuttled the commander-in-chief off Air Force One via a catering truck and onto a secure military transport plane.
Left behind on the main 747 was the White House press pool, blissfully unaware that Trump wasn&#8217;t aboard, only to erupt in a collective panic upon realizing they’d played the role of unwitting decoys. <a href="https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/instadocs-the-decoy-plane-what-to-know">According</a> to Netflix, &#8220;a plane full of reporters and the public they answer to were left flying blind.&#8221;
The documentary promises &#8220;firsthand accounts&#8221; from shell-shocked journalists detailing their harrowing experience. One AP photographer dramatically recounted shooting &#8220;the sh*t out of&#8221; a catering truck before receiving the horrifying command to pull down his window shade, instantly triggering his &#8220;spidey sense.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This July, while flying back from a NATO summit in Turkey, President Trump slipped off Air Force One in a catering truck and secretly boarded a different aircraft — leaving traveling reporters to fly on, unaware the president was no longer with them.
Instadocs: The Decoy Plane,… <a href="https://t.co/iuADnXxMoV">pic.twitter.com/iuADnXxMoV</a>
&mdash; Netflix (@netflix) <a href="https://x.com/netflix/status/2094779811935715344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 1, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Other reporters have <a href="https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2026/trump-air-force-one-decoy-reporters-threat/#:~:text=The%20New%20York%20Times'%20Maggie%20Haberman%2C%20Eric,staff%20members%2C%20to%20serve%20as%20unknowing%20decoys.%E2%80%9D">openly whined</a> about being treated as &#8220;expendable,&#8221; while the White House Correspondents’ Association fired off private notes wringing their hands over &#8220;press safety&#8221; and reporting integrity.
Because if there’s one thing the White House press corps excels at, it’s making a life-saving military operation all about themselves.
Enter reality.
Former Clinton military aide Lt. Col. Robert &#8220;Buzz&#8221; Patterson <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/man-carried-clinton-nuclear-football-reveals-scares-hell-air-force-one-story">torched</a> the media’s melodramatic narrative, calling the Secret Service’s high-stakes shell game &#8220;brilliant&#8221; and routine.
Patterson pointed out that presidential decoys, stealth plane swaps, and catering-truck tactics are standard operating procedures administrations have used for decades, including Clinton’s, to protect the presidency in high-threat environments. He scoffed at the media&#8217;s safety outrage, noting the decoy jet carried senior Cabinet officials, full Air Force crews, and was escorted by U.S. fighter jets.
&#8220;We do it all the time,&#8221; Patterson said, warning that the media&#8217;s hyperventilating and dangerous leaks about classified security protocols actually put future presidents and military personnel in harm&#8217;s way. He stated, &#8220;I hope that they prosecute this to the fullest. Whoever leaked that, in my opinion, and having been involved in this, was highly placed in that process. There’s only a few people who actually know exactly what’s going down, and that’s by design. So if somebody leaked it, it was somebody involved in the process, and that scares the hell out of me.&#8221;
While the press corps treats a routine, successful counter-threat operation like a traumatic thriller, Netflix is more than happy to cash in on the drama.
Don&#8217;t forget to close your window shades.

CORRECTION / TURKEY-NATO-SUMMIT-DEFENCE

The Crying Game: Netflix Announces Doc On Reporters Left ‘Flying Blind’ Aboard Trump’s Decoy Plane

donald trump

media bias

politics

secret service

white house correspondents association

When Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford joined a 12-state coalition suing to block Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros., the case initially looked like a conventional antitrust challenge. Upon closer examination, it appears Ford may be doing the bidding of his friends. 
The biggest beneficiary of Ford&#8217;s action is almost certainly Netflix, which was accused by Paramount earlier this year of running a &#8220;scorched-earth&#8221; campaign against the merger, pushing regulators to shut it down. It turns out that Netflix, a major Paramount competitor, has curious ties to Ford. 
It is a lead sponsor of the Attorney General Alliance, along with 11 of the 12 attorneys general who are part of the Paramount lawsuit. Additionally, one of Ford&#8217;s most prominent political donors, Susan Rice, sits on the Netflix board of directors.
The Attorney General Alliance has been marred by scandal over accusations that its members take action on behalf of its corporate donors. Ford himself is facing an ethics complaint that <a href="https://news3lv.com/news/local/nevada-ethics-panel-advances-complaint-against-attorney-general-aaron-ford">alleges</a> that he &#8220;accepted luxury international trips&#8221; from the Attorney General Alliance, even though it is funded by corporations he&#8217;s supposed to regulate.
In 2024 alone, Ford traveled to 16 different cities which <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-gubernatorial-candidate-racked-up-eye-popping-travel-bill-ag-during-400-days-traveling-out-of-state">included</a> a $2,819 trip to Secrets Puerto Los Cabos, a luxury resort in Mexico and $11,992 at Martha’s Vineyard, a luxury vacation spot in Massachusetts. In total, Ford accepted $140,000 for group-sponsored travel and lodging from the AGA. 
After examining the complaints, a review panel <a href="https://news3lv.com/news/local/nevada-ethics-panel-advances-complaint-against-attorney-general-aaron-ford">found</a> enough evidence &#8220;to support a determination that just and sufficient cause exists for the Commission to render an opinion in these consolidated matters regarding the alleged violations.&#8221;
The AGA receives funding from Netflix, a company that just happened to lose a bid to Warner Bros., to Paramount, a merger Ford and other state attorneys are currently blocking.
Concerns about the AGA’s activity have extended beyond Ford. A top aide to an attorney general who was on an AGA-funded trip to Qatar with Ford and other state attorneys general, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-qatar-uses-an-american-nonprofit-to-hide-major-influence-operation-in-the-united-states">told</a> the Daily Wire that the nonprofit has turned itself into a “laundromat” for corporate and foreign interests.
“What AGA has turned itself into is a laundromat for anybody who wants to do stuff without having to disclose it,” said the top aide. 
One of Netflix’s board members, Susan Rice, also happens to have donated to Ford directly. Rice donated a total of $2,000 to Ford, making her first donation of $1,000 on June 28, 2026, and her second on June 30, 2026. 
Rice has been with Netflix for years, even returning to the company after a stint in the Biden administration. Rice was a top contender to be named Joe Biden’s running mate in 2020 after he committed to choosing a woman, and specifically faced pressure to pick a woman of color. Biden ultimately deemed Kamala Harris to be the better choice over Rice, but offered Rice a spot in his administration as a domestic policy advisor. She left Netflix for the position before returning in 2023, after her public service. 
Rice has strained the company&#8217;s relationship with the Trump administration, with the president even <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/02/27/media/how-the-susan-rice-snafu-cost-netflix-on-home-stretch-of-warner-bros-discovery-deal/">calling for her to be sacked</a> over comments she made about corporations who choose to &#8220;take a knee&#8221; during this administration. &#8220;Netflix should fire racist, Trump Deranged Susan Rice, IMMEDIATELY, or pay the consequences,&#8221; Donald Trump said.
Netflix abandoned its attempt to buy Warner Bros. after the president&#8217;s comments, with many believing the decision came because of a belief that the White House would kill the merger.
Ford’s office did not respond to The Daily Wire&#8217;s request for comment to this story.

Screenshot 2026-08-13 at 11.18.47 PM

Is Aaron Ford’s Paramount Lawsuit A Favor For A Prominent Dem Donor?

aaron ford

attorney general alliance

paramount

susan rice

How far would you go to save your son? That is the question David Burroughs (Sam Worthington) must confront in Netflix’s “I Will Find You,” an eight-episode adaptation of Harlan Coben’s thriller.
It is refreshing to see Worthington apply his talents to a role that does not involve portraying a Native American Smurf alien (&#8220;Avatar,&#8221; for the uninitiated). Convicted of murdering his three-year-old son, Matthew, Burroughs has spent five years in prison, and Worthington convincingly embodies the defeated posture of a man who has accepted his penance and no longer imagines a life beyond his cell.
The prosecution argued that Burroughs, suffering from night terrors, bludgeoned Matthew to death with a baseball bat and buried the weapon without remembering either act. The body was mutilated beyond visual identification. The legal logic is questionable at best, and the supposed night terrors strangely never recur. If Burroughs committed the killing unconsciously, his criminal responsibility would hardly be straightforward, and the series never explains why he is serving his sentence in a federal penitentiary. Still, the setup produces some of the most gripping fugitive suspense since “Prison Break.” Both series revolve around innocent men discarded by corrupt authorities, though “I Will Find You” carries greater emotional weight through its father-son relationship.
The plot kicks into gear when Rachel Mills (Britt Lower), Burroughs’s former sister-in-law and a disgraced investigative reporter, visits him with a photograph discovered on social media. In the background is a boy who looks uncannily like Matthew might five years later, down to the birthmark on his cheek. Taking an abducted child to a crowded amusement park without concealing such an obvious identifying feature is an extraordinarily careless plot contrivance, but it gives Burroughs his first reason in years to hope. Resigned to dying in prison, he suddenly has renewed resolve and a reason to escape.
Lower brings a harried, quick-thinking energy to Mills, whose motives blend guilt, familial loyalty, and professional ambition. Matthew’s possible survival offers Burroughs salvation; for Mills, it may resurrect her career. These competing motivations give them engaging chemistry as they improvise their way through the conspiracy.
Like “Prison Break,” however, a story powered by conspiracy must keep adding layers to sustain itself. “I Will Find You” piles on police officers, trial witnesses, prison officials, FBI agents, mobsters, wealthy benefactors, and compromised medical personnel whose connections to Burroughs remain obscure. By the midpoint, the plot begins to resemble a Candace Owens podcast, minus the monologues about Jews.
Among the expanding cast is sharp-witted, tech-savvy FBI investigator Greer (Logan Browning). There is also Hayden (Milo Ventimiglia), Rachel’s extravagantly wealthy former boyfriend, whose affluence the series emphasizes by having him place a $1.5 million bid at an art auction and stroll out as the gavel falls, like an action hero walking away from an explosion. Other characters arrive with similar fanfare, hover suspiciously, and then evaporate.
The series also depends on its characters failing to ask obvious questions. A neighbor’s testimony that she saw Burroughs bury the murder weapon helped secure his conviction. Once it becomes clear that she lied, the case should begin collapsing. Why did she lie? Why does law enforcement display so little curiosity about perjury in a child-murder prosecution? The revelation becomes another clue in an overcrowded scavenger hunt, and the series rushes onward.
Despite its Swiss-cheese plotting, the holes never overwhelm the suspense. Hull and the series’ directors maintain such relentless forward motion that Burroughs seems one mistake away from capture. From rooftop pursuits to Scorsese-style street shootouts, the series packs so much action into eight episodes that there is scarcely room to breathe. Whenever the conspiracy threatens to buckle under scrutiny, the show accelerates. You may get lost in its web of corruption, but you will never be bored.
Amid the pulp machinery, “I Will Find You” raises a more serious question: What happens when institutions entrusted with maintaining order are corrupted?
As a criminal-justice hawk, I support tougher and longer prison sentences, more restrictive bail policies, and capital punishment in at least some cases (brutal child murder being one). That makes the series’ subtle warning especially relevant. Conservatives distrust government in nearly every other sphere yet often grow deferential when the state puts on a badge. We all want safe cities. But the same power used to punish the guilty can be corrupted and turned against the innocent.
Midway through the series, Burroughs is urged to question his assumptions about those closest to him: “Start asking yourself questions you’re too afraid to ask.” Beneath eight episodes of unnerving tension, this becomes the story’s lingering libertarian lesson. Institutions wielding coercive power demand scrutiny, and families cannot outsource their duty of protection to systems vulnerable to corruption. We cannot blindly trust institutions to keep us or our children safe. That is what fathers and families are for.
***
Harry Khachatrian (<a href="https://x.com/harry1t6">@Harry1T6</a>) is a film critic for the Washington Examiner. He is a software engineer, holds a master’s degree from the University of Toronto, and writes about wine at <a href="https://www.betweenbottles.com/">BetweenBottles.com</a>.
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

I_Will_Find_You_n_S1_E3_00_16_24_04_R

Netflix’s ‘I Will Find You’ Outruns Its Own Absurdity

harlan coben

i will find you

sam worthington

Social media users are losing their minds after discovering how Netflix chose to describe one of the most iconic films of all time. 
The streamer’s short <a href="https://www.netflix.com/title/70020694">description</a> for the historical drama “Gone with the Wind” reads: “A 1939 American Civil War epic known for its racism. To learn more about Black lives in America, search ‘Black Lives Matter.’”
The title does not appear to be available to stream in the United States currently.
Screenshots of the description went viral on social media, with commenters saying the whole thing was no surprise from a woke company like Netflix. Elon Musk also <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2077362080286412981">reacted</a>, saying simply, “Needs to change.”
This is not the first time “Gone with the Wind” has come under attack by would-be censors. In 2020, HBO Max <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/backfire-gone-with-the-wind-sales-explode-after-leftists-target-movie-sales-of-other-classics-also-skyrocketing">pulled the title</a> from circulation amid the public outcry over George Floyd’s death. The move ended up having the opposite effect, with sales of the film exploding.
It was later <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gone-with-the-wind-returning-to-hbo-max-will-feature-a-disclaimer">restored to HBO Max</a> and included an introduction from Turner Classic Movies host Jacqueline Stewart. She argued in an op-ed, also published in 2020, that the film deserved to be circulated so everyone could learn more about the evils of the past. 
“‘Gone with the Wind’ is a prime text for examining expressions of white supremacy in popular culture,” Stewart insisted, arguing that the film “taps into long standing myths about the gentility of the antebellum South.”
“As the title indicates, ‘Gone with the Wind’ looks back nostalgically at idyllic days that are no more (because they never were),” she continued. “By harkening back to the great old days, plantation dramas invite white viewers to imagine appealing but false pedigrees. When working class and poor white viewers identify with a noble white lineage, for example, they might be less likely to form what could be beneficial alliances with their black working class and poor counterparts.”
“Gone with the Wind” is a historical romance film based on the 1936 novel of the same name by Margaret Mitchell. It’s an enduring classic that most people believe to be representative of its time, but it has still become the subject of controversy at different points in time, especially in the last decade.
In 2023, the book’s publisher defended <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gone-with-the-wind-publisher-calls-the-book-harmful">adding an introductory warning</a> without changing any of the book’s text.
“‘Gone with the Wind’ is a novel which includes problematic elements including the romanticization of a shocking era in our history and the horrors of slavery,” the publishers wrote at the time. “The novel includes the representation of unacceptable practices, racist and stereotypical depictions and troubling themes, characterization, language and imagery.”
“The text of this book remains true to the original in every way and is reflective of the language and period in which it was originally written,” the disclaimer went on. “We want to alert readers that there may be hurtful or indeed harmful phrases and terminology that were prevalent at the time this novel was written and which are true to the context of the historical setting of this novel. Pan Macmillan believes changing the text to reflect today’s world would undermine the authenticity of the original, so has chosen to leave the text in its entirety.”
“This does not, however, constitute an endorsement of the characterization, content or language used,” it said in conclusion.
“Gone with the Wind” is one of the best-known classic movies of all time, earning 10 Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director, following its release in 1939. Hattie McDaniel, who portrayed Mammy in that film, was also the first black person ever to win an Academy Award.

Gone with the Wind

Netflix Slaps Bizarre Disclaimer On ‘Gone With The Wind,’ Plugs Black Lives Matter

entertainment

Movies

Racism

Fans of &#8220;Little House on the Prairie&#8221; can rest easy. I&#8217;ve been studying Laura Ingalls Wilder for decades, and I love the new Netflix rendition of her story.
While binge-watching it over the past several days, I hung on every scene, taking in the scenery, the characterization, the story lines, the innovations. I was hooked from the opening scene of the first episode until the closing credits of the eighth and final episode. The cinematography, the writing, the acting, the themes, and the action all swept me away and brought me to tears more than once.
As a kid, I read Laura Ingalls Wilder’s &#8220;Little House&#8221; novels over and over. I dressed as Laura for Halloween. I faithfully watched the original television series. As a mother, I read the books to my children and showed them the various television miniseries as well as the television series produced and directed by Michael Landon, who played Charles Ingalls. These television adaptations run the gamut of staying close to the novels to straying very far from them.
But no matter how big the departures from the &#8220;Little House&#8221; books, all of these renditions, especially the new Netflix one, embrace the family-centered wholesomeness of Wilder’s novels. Far from presenting a woke version of the beloved story, Netflix’s new series celebrates life and human dignity as it explores the very same questions raised when the novel was published by Laura Ingalls Wilder in 1935.
The autobiographical novel follows the Ingalls family as they depart from the Big Woods of Wisconsin to settle as farmers on the Osage Diminished Reserve in southeastern Kansas. Charles Ingalls (Pa) acted on news that the Osage lands would be open to settlement as soon as the tribe signed the treaty. The plan was to arrive just as the Osage removal had taken place, in time to select a choice parcel of land. But the Osage had not decided whether to sign the treaty, and their presence creates the central tension of the book.
When &#8220;Little House on the Prairie&#8221; was published in 1935, no other author asked the questions Wilder put to her readers. Why did the Ingalls and other settlers choose to settle in Indian Territory if they didn’t like Indians? Why were potential settlers told the Osage Diminished Reserve was available for settlement before the Osages had decided whether to sign the treaty? Why did the government make the tribe leave a place that had been designated Indian Territory? Netflix’s new cinematic version places these questions from the novel firmly at the center of its riveting rendition, creating new characters and story lines that bring those tensions into the everyday realities faced by the Ingalls family.
The release of the cast list made clear that a host of newly invented characters would join the Ingalls family in southeastern Kansas. Teasers showed the Ingalls family taking an active part in the town life of Independence, Kansas, which is a new angle to the story. (The novel has the family living some 40 miles from the town, a distance that made trips there something of an annual occasion; in reality, the Ingalls’ homesite was 13 miles from Independence.) But the relationships and story lines that keep plots moving forward for an entire season’s worth of episodes need a town. I’m willing to allow for that suspension of disbelief.
Showrunner Rebecca Sonnenshine and her crew of writers and producers have crafted a beautiful series that is simultaneously true to the themes and story arc of Wilder’s novels, cognizant of the timeline and history of the “real” Ingalls family, and creative in spinning new characters and story lines that build the themes and give texture to the story arc. Other minor characters from the novel appear in greatly expanded roles, such as Dr. George Tann, the black doctor who nurses the malaria-ridden Ingalls family back to health. The endearing Mr. Edwards gains a first name (John), a backstory, and a love interest. Mr. Scott is transformed into a young single man from a wealthy Boston family. There is no Mrs. Scott, but much of her character is transferred to Jemma James, the town’s leading socialite and bigot.
The essential parts of Wilder’s novel are all there: a dangerous river crossing that results in the disappearance of Jack the dog, the necessity of finding help to build the cabin after Caroline is injured, tensions with the Osages who help themselves to the Ingalls’ food supplies, the entire family suffering from malaria, Christmas with Mr. Edwards supplying greetings and gifts from Santa, a devastating prairie fire, an encounter with wolves, tense Osage councils, and the threat of armed government officials pushing the Ingalls and their neighbors off the land.
These quintessential aspects of Wilder’s novel appear in different ways and combinations in the new series, which underscores the intertwined themes of danger and the need for community. Very early in the first episode, Dr. Tann tells Charles that independence on the prairie is an impossible dream. Throughout the eight episodes, community building plays a central role in plot development. The Ingalls’ survival depends on good neighbors who are willing to help each other.
Departures from Wilder’s novel most noticeably center on the ages of Laura and Mary and the relationships they develop. Laura seems to be around seven years old, while Mary seems to be around twelve, and baby sister Carrie was born at Christmas. In the novel, they are much younger, ages four and six, with Carrie born in Wisconsin.
In the show, Laura befriends an Osage girl, Good Eagle, and Mary has a beau, Caleb, who was abandoned by his father and taken in by the Exoduster brother and sister team who own the town mercantile. These relationships develop across the entire season. Laura’s friendship with Good Eagle brings the tensions between the settlers and the Osages into tight focus. Mary’s budding romance is just one part of her adolescent growth pangs. She is constantly annoyed by Laura and even jealous that everyone likes her best. She is tired of having to be a good role model and share all she has with her sister.
Laura’s character traits are more exaggerated than in the novel. She is a tomboy who wears a boys’ hat and expertly wields a slingshot to hunt rabbits. She loves the prairie and does not want to spend time studying. In an interesting twist, she, rather than Charles, is the family storyteller. She is often called upon to tell a story, in which moments she relates something from &#8220;Little House in the Big Woods.&#8221;
Charles’ and Caroline’s characters have also evolved in the new Netflix series. Charles is still a talented carpenter and musician and a loving father and husband. But his big heart causes trouble for his family. Caroline grows from the reluctant pioneer who dislikes Indians into a feisty champion of her Osage and Exoduster friends. By episode eight, Caroline displays the same level of sensitivity toward the Osages as Charles and Laura. Such understanding is a big departure from the Caroline of Wilder’s novels, who never changes her poor opinion of American Indians. 
When there seems to be no way to remain on their homesite, she tells Charles they must move on. They came to Kansas in search of a place to become the best version of themselves. They have done this and can replicate it somewhere else. With that, the Ingalls bid farewell to their new friends and departed, with Mr. Edwards leading the way to a town in Minnesota where his deceased wife’s cousin has a store, Oleson’s Mercantile. Here’s a teaser for season two, a continuation of the &#8220;Little House&#8221; story as the Ingalls move to the banks of Plum Creek.
The new story lines and characters featured in the Netflix rendition of &#8220;Little House on the Prairie&#8221; are details to be enjoyed and celebrated, not a cause for castigation or hand-wringing about wokeness. These new twists on the beloved novel reveal that the &#8220;Little House&#8221; story arc is such a fundamental and universal aspect of American cultural literacy that the kinds of liberties taken with Wilder’s novels add to the power of the story.
The &#8220;Little House&#8221; story and its television adaptations are vehicles for discussing and encapsulating core American historical understandings and timeless values. Familial love is a constant theme in the Netflix rendition, as is respect for life and an understanding of the inherent dignity of each human person. Moreover, Netflix’s release of this beautiful new television series just days after the Fourth of July in the midst of the country’s semiquincentennial underscores the power of Wilder’s autobiographical fiction, and it further cements its place as a wholesome standard-bearer of American culture. 
***
Dedra McDonald Birzer is director and editor-in-chief at the South Dakota Historical Society Press and a lecturer in history at Hillsdale College. She serves on the executive boards of the Laura Ingalls Wilder Pageant Society and the Middle West Review. She is currently writing an intellectual biography of Rose Wilder Lane.
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

LHOTP_108_Unit_01166RC

The Verdict Is In On The ‘Little House On The Prairie’ Reboot

upstream

Do not pass go, but maybe collect $2 million? 
Netflix just announced a new game show idea based on one of the most iconic board games of all time. The streaming giant said it will begin casting for a reality competition show inspired by the Hasbro sensation Monopoly.
Per <a href="https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/netflix-monopoly-competition-series-casting-1236809961/">Variety</a>, contestants will use strategy and build alliances as they navigate a life-sized Monopoly Town Square, all in pursuit of the $2 million grand prize. That means buying up properties and collecting cash to avoid going bankrupt. The players who lose all their money will get sent home.
Monopoly is scheduled to air on Netflix beginning in fall 2027 and is being made in partnership with Hasbro Entertainment and Studio Lambert, which is also responsible for popular game shows including “Squid Game: The Challenge” and “The Circle.”
It’s not Netflix&#8217;s only big adaptation in the works. &#8220;Wonka’s The Golden Ticket,&#8221; which will be based on the Roald Dahl novel “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” will premiere this September.
Casting is currently open as Netflix searches for 12 players who think they have what it takes, or at least who have the stamina to actually finish the game without getting in a massive brawl and flipping the board before storming off. 
The news was met with mixed reactions online and comes on the heels of rumors that Netflix has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/netfilx-lost-the-plot">lost the plot</a>, with the majority of its new shows <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/netflix-viewers-abandon-shows-in-droves-after-one-season-and-the-audience-has-feedback?author=Amanda+Harding&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Netflix+Viewers+Abandon+Shows+In+Droves+After+One+Season%2C+And+The+Audience+Has+Feedback">never being renewed</a> for a second season. Subscribers have complained about the long wait between seasons, plus the temptation to binge watch a single series and forget about it shortly after. 
The streamer also turned its big hit “Squid Game” with its 265 million views into a game show. The game show based on “Squid Game,” however, failed to put up such impressive numbers as the original show.

Monopoly

Netflix Is Turning America’s Favorite Board Game Into A Reality Show

Reality TV

television

Netflix has had some hits. The series finale of “Stranger Things,” for example, pulled in 31.3 million views worldwide, and it wasn’t even the streamer’s biggest show. That would be “Squid Game,” season one of which achieved 265.2 million views. Season one of the second-biggest series, “Wednesday,” released in 2022, drew 252.1 million views. Season two of “Wednesday,” released in 2025, dropped to 119.3 million views. Season three is slated for release in 2027 – that’s three seasons in five years.
Since Netflix began offering original programming, though, it’s canceled <a href="https://www.imdb.com/list/ls562757142/">85 series</a>, at least at the time of writing. The problem is that those cancellations are basically Netflix’s specialty. While easy to attribute the gaps between seasons to the dropoff in numbers, and thus the need to cancel, it’s not just that, though the gaps are ridiculous. It’s the business model. It lives to cancel series. And while the service is profitable, it also sucks. Killing programming shouldn’t be the goal of production studios.
Substacker Aakash Gupta has a theory about why Netflix suffers in a way that, say, HBO Max does not. On X, he <a href="https://x.com/aakashgupta/status/2074032098219061359">posited</a> that the gaps punish Netflix twice. That is, since it releases series all at once, it encourages bingeing, but then when people have to wait years for another season, they’ve lost interest. HBO Max, which also has ridiculous gaps between seasons, at least draws them out, forcing people to wait between episodes. That creates a stickier product because viewers invest months in each season rather than a weekend.
This could be accurate – or not. Streaming services don’t like sharing their data because it could be used by competitors. Perhaps it is that Netflix’s internal metrics reveal a <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/netflix-keeps-canceling-shows-prematurely-why-1971080">much less popular</a> show than it would seem to viewers. On the other hand, it could be that the company is simply quick to cancel rather than putting in the effort to develop a show, such as network favorite “The Office,” with <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/netflix-keeps-canceling-shows-prematurely-why-1971080">massive potential</a>.
This happens, or at least used to happen, more than people realized. “Seinfeld” had a <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098904/ratings/?newac=true">weak start</a>, something even we fans have to admit. “Cheers,” which ended up wildly successful, was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheers#:~:text=After%2520premiering%2520in,of%2520117%2520nominations.">almost canceled</a> in its first season. “Futurama” has been canceled twice, with its final season streaming this year.
This isn’t a phenomenon that’s unique to television, either. Many bands and artists that ended up with long, successful careers started off with <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/snlqsg/successful_artists_whose_first_albums_were_flops/">a flop or two</a>. Bruce Springsteen, Hall and Oates, Genesis, Pantera, Tori Amos, David Bowie, Shakira, Black Sabbath, Bob Dylan, and Bon Jovi all would’ve been axed had they been streaming shows. Musicians and bands, though, can bypass the studio gatekeepers much more easily now. For starters, the barriers to entry are much lower than they once were. They don’t need recording studios, just some equipment, an interface, and a laptop. Second, once they have a product, they can simply upload it to Spotify, SoundCloud, Beatport, and YouTube.
Unless, God forbid, AI becomes a popular way to produce video content, it still costs money to make a show. And unlike music, a field which also became more ruthless when sabermetrics came to dominate all, it’s not as easy for those who want to make it to bypass those gatekeepers. Gone are the days of deciders with good instincts willing to take a chance on a product. Now, it’s all analytics. (Unrelated, but please comment and share this article, and subscribe if you don’t already do so.)
And there is nothing inherently wrong with an analytical approach to business. The problem is when the business of art, which is what streaming platforms sell, becomes purely analytically driven. No, something like “Eastbound and Down” isn’t what people would traditionally consider art, but when you really dig into just how <a href="https://medium.com/@joeimbruglia/shakespeares-filthy-sense-of-humor-4ec53a62bed8">juvenile and vulgar Shakespeare was</a>, you gain an appreciation for how sometimes being really old can change people’s perceptions.
Incidentally, “Eastbound and Down,” an HBO show, is a more modern example of beating the system, even though it aired on cable. Part of its brilliance was Danny McBride’s. The show was filmed in North Carolina. Although there were family concerns, a major reason was the lack of direct flights from <a href="https://www.aol.com/articles/danny-mcbride-says-ditching-la-153512621.html">L.A. to Wilmington</a>, which allowed them to create season one without interference from the executives. Season one was successful, and the studio trusted them moving forward.
Now, though, the execs are always watching, keeping up with the numbers, canceling without compunction. And while it makes money, the modern system, particularly as Netflix employs it, doesn’t tend to create the lasting sort of programming that the old ways did. For even though “Stranger Things” closed out with strong numbers, it also closed out with a very anticlimactic ending, after only five seasons over nine and a half years.
As things currently stand, the Netflix formula is unlikely to change unless its profits turn south. Which is a shame, because the future would be better with a return to executives looking to make not just money, but also great programming, even if the numbers don’t initially justify keeping a show on for another season. Step one is to get rid of the ridiculous gaps and the focus on bingeing. Both are overrated, and as the push notification from the Wall Street Journal I received while writing this suggests, they actually aren’t working out so well for <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/media/netflix-is-exploring-live-tv-and-bundles-as-it-struggles-to-keep-viewers-hooked-e1eb28f6?st=x5ms9P&amp;reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink">maintaining overall engagement</a>.
The proposed solution? Adding live television, which is a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-streaming-trap-we-all-fell-for">revolutionary idea</a>. In any case, maybe it’s not that analytics are bad after all, but how the executives <a href="https://youtu.be/kEwFYPQtswo?si=HNJY_f1P4rGhRTbN&amp;t=100">respond to them</a>.
***
Rich Cromwell is a writer living in Northwest Arkansas. He produces the Cookin&#8217; Up a Story podcast, which you can listen to <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cookin-up-a-story/id1624969096">here</a>. You can also follow him on X: @rcromwell4

Netflix

Netflix Lost The Plot

DW Opinion

streaming

TV writer Rebecca Sonnenshine recently defended making her latest project, a reboot of the beloved series “Little House on the Prairie,” a lot more woke.
At this point, it would be more surprising if she had left politics out of it. And to hear her tell it, the word “woke” has lost its meaning anyway. But Sonnenshine did go on record defending the aspect of the new storyline which conservatives are most likely to take issue with, namely, making a local Native American family a key feature of the show despite them not being featured prominently in the best-selling books.
While Laura Ingalls and her family are still main characters, much attention is paid to the mixed-race Osage family, the Mitchells, as Variety noted in an <a href="https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/netflix-little-house-on-the-prairie-woke-comments-tradwife-1236804646/">interview</a> with the showrunner.
“As an adult, everything is different. Especially ‘Little House on the Prairie,’ it’s all about the Osage,” Sonnenshine says. “The Osage are all over that book, but we don’t know them at all. And I thought, well, we have to know them. I have to figure out a way that we can know them, and how do you do that? Trying to create a family that parallels the Ingalls. I had to do a lot of research to figure out how to do that, and I did and we worked with a story consultant named Robert Warrior,” Sonnenshine told the outlet. 
“I’m not even sure what ‘woke’ means to people anymore, to be honest,” she went on. “I know what I think it means, which is the definition of it being aware and alert to social injustice and prejudice, in particular racial prejudice. So, when people say, ‘I hope it’s not woke,’ I think, ‘Really? Oh, that’s interesting.’ But I don’t think people are using it in that manner; I think it’s just become a catch-all word for things that I don’t quite understand. If I had to sum it up, what people are afraid of is that something from their childhood will be portrayed in a way that scares them.”
Sonnenshine reiterated what she’s “been saying from the beginning,” which is, “I feel like people are worried for no reason.”
A Slate reviewer <a href="https://slate.com/culture/2026/07/little-house-on-the-prairie-netflix-series-2026-reboot-laura-ingalls-wilder.html">agreed</a> that the “Little House” reboot has indeed been altered to suit progressive sensibilities. 
“There’s no other way for me to put this: Netflix did indeed woke-ify Little House on the Prairie,” wrote Rebecca Onion. “This new version makes a deep bow to contemporary concerns about the politics of the source material. Some of the Ingalls family’s closest new friends on the show are an Osage couple, a black doctor and black storekeeper, and a French Canadian woman who wears trousers and practices free love.”
She also notes a new antagonist in the form of a stodgy, traditionalist family. 
“Netflix’s Ingalls family are good people, even by 2026 standards, and you can see it in contrast with the Jameses,” she writes. “The Jameses are town-dwelling rich folk who don’t appear in the Little House books but seem to be an adaptation of the Oleson family … The Jameses’ vision for Independence — hierarchy,  respectability, a church, a school — first seduces, then repels, the more gentle-minded Ingallses, Ma and Mary. The James matriarch, Jemma, played by Mary Holland, brings a welcome comedic hateability to this sunny show.” 
Prominent conservatives predicted this long before it happened. Podcast host Megyn Kelly <a href="https://x.com/megynkelly/status/1884765394914681141">posted</a> on X in January, “Netflix, if you woke-ify ‘Little House on the Prairie’ I will make it my singular mission to absolutely ruin your project.” 
This prompted actress Melissa Gilbert, who starred on the original “Little House” series for nine seasons between 1974 and 1982, to reply, “Ummm…watch the original again. TV doesn’t get too much more ‘woke’ than we did. We tackled: racism, addiction, nativism, antisemitism, misogyny, rape, spousal abuse, and every other ‘woke ‘ topic you can think of. Thank you very much.”
Gilbert has been making headlines lately as she defends her husband, Timothy Busfield, amid allegations of child sexual abuse.
The new Little House on the Prairie adaptation debuted all 8 episodes of its first season on Netflix on July 9. The show has been officially renewed for a second season.

Little House on the Prairie

Yes, The ‘Little House On The Prairie’ Reboot Went Woke

hollywood

Wokeness

Cable television, the source you turn to if you’re looking for a veritable cornucopia of <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/media/trumps-crackdown-on-drug-ads-could-sting-tv-networks-673c322a?st=jaKxKb&amp;reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink">drug commercials</a> with bits of mid-tier shows aired between them, is <a href="https://x.com/RoadMN/status/2062598828889440556/photo/1">not doing great</a>. Of the top 10 programs for the 2025-2026 season, seven were available only on streaming platforms. The other three were available both on streaming and on broadcast television. None were solely on broadcast. 
This is a <a href="https://adwave.com/resources/cable-vs-streaming-viewing-share-q4-2025">generational trend</a>, with those 55 and older being more likely to choose cable and those under that age preferring streaming services. Factor in that 28% of Americans have <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/01/83-of-us-adults-use-streaming-services-far-fewer-subscribe-to-cable-or-satellite-tv/">both cable/satellite and streaming subscriptions</a>, and it’s easy to see which offering is winning the battle. Cable is on the way out, and this represents a huge failing not just for the cable companies and pharmaceutical advertisers, but for America as a whole. 
Because, America, it’s time to admit that while streaming is great and gives us a whole host of options, it’s also terrible. When cable was king, we could turn on the TV, check the guide, and go to the on-demand offerings. It was all right there. It was one bill. There was only one company to have to deal with. Now, subscriptions rule our lives. 
Not only is the cost of cable-cutting a mirage because of all the subscriptions, but we also no longer have one-stop shopping when it’s time to watch. We have to figure out which service has the program we want. We have to remember to cancel that one service we only wanted to watch that one program on. We have to wade through a panoply of garbage just as we did when we had cable. And that doesn’t even get into sports. 
Sports used to be the reason that some of us got cable. Sure, there were add-ons. There were also market limitations. If you were a Tennessee Titans fan but lived closer to the Kansas City Chiefs, guess which AFC game you were getting on Sundays. At least you could watch games, though. 
Now, who knows? While there is a lot on the major networks plus ESPN and its satellite stations, to get everything you’re going to need a bunch of streaming services. Then you’re right back in the same problem the streamers give us when it comes to finding shows. And you still can’t get most out-of-market games without paying for upgraded streaming options. It’s ridiculous.
Don’t get me wrong. I tuned in for “Stranger Things.” “Sean Combs: The Reckoning” was gut-wrenching but also admirable because Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson is the pettiest man on earth and no one makes petty work better than he does. Those are the only programs from the top 10 I’ve watched, but I’m admittedly not the best example. I’m more the person you look to if you want to know what’s going to get prematurely canceled.
Still, when we get below the top 10 and realize that “Matlock” comes in at 13 and see “60 Minutes” at 27, we know where viewers are tuning in, and it ain’t on a streaming platform. It’s easy to hate on boomers. It’s more challenging to admit they were right about things. Television is one of those areas, at least in terms of medium, though maybe Bari Weiss can turn “60 Minutes” into a show that appeals to those whose age doesn’t start with the number six or higher. Getting rid of that insufferable <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scott-pelleys-glasses-were-a-prop-for-a-grown-man-play-acting-as-an-anchor">glasses guy</a> was a good start. (Maybe replace him with <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DYYhJDFx-S_/">Jordan the Stallion</a>?)
Regardless, if we stay on our current trajectory, cable is eventually going to stop slowly failing and collapse all at once. Then, all we’ll be left with is streaming. Will we have a world of choices at our fingertips? Sure. Will we have to spend way more per month than if cable had figured out a way to thwart and integrate the streamers for a slightly higher price than we were paying? Absolutely. 
And we have no one but ourselves to blame. We could have stood athwart our streaming services and yelled “stop,” but instead we embraced them, invited them into our homes, our lives, and our relationships. (Password sharing is a bond that outlives marriages, not because people want to see their ex’s name on the “choose profile” screen, but because they don’t want to add another monthly bill.)
 We said “no” to sticking with one monthly bill and a variety of programming all under one banner. Instead, we allowed ourselves to get greedy for content while satiating the greed of the companies that owned the intellectual property we were too lazy to pirate. Now, we’re barreling towards a future littered with seemingly infinite options, so many that we often fail to choose before it’s too late to finish our offering before we go to sleep. Alternatively, we find there&#8217;s nothing to watch other than the monthly payments leaving our bank accounts. 
***
Rich Cromwell is a writer living in Northwest Arkansas. He produces the Cookin’ Up a Story podcast, which you can listen to <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cookin-up-a-story/id1624969096" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. You can also follow him on X: <a href="https://x.com/rcromwell4">@rcromwell4</a>.
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

Gemini_Generated_Image_k1tnohk1tnohk1tn

We Thought We Beat Cable. We Were Wrong.

Boomers

Menu