LAUGH TRACKS

I really don’t know why television studios still insist on using laugh tracks on sitcoms. They are the absolute worst and nothing more than a crutch for lazy writing. Guys, if you need to tell the viewer when to laugh, your joke isn’t that funny, plain and simple. Plus, the forced pauses for canned laughter kill story momentum and timing. For example, did you know that the producers of Seinfeld would tell the audience not to clap when Kramer (Michael Richards) entered a scene because it threw everything and everyone off? Hell, I’ll go one further… have you ever seen clips of Friends with the laugh track removed? They’re painful to watch. Actually, on second thought, perhaps we should just get rid of multi-camera sitcoms altogether since they are the only television medium still using laugh tracks. Frankly, single-camera sitcoms are categorically so much better — Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Ted Lasso, 30 Rock, The Office, The Good Place, Atlanta, Schitt’s Creek, and the list goes on. In fact, do you know the last multi-camera sitcom to be nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series at the Emmys? The Big Bang Theory in 2014 (gross), and even series creator and showrunner Chuck Lorre knew to lose the laugh track when creating that series’ spinoff Young Sheldon.

GAL GADOT

In all fairness, this isn’t exclusively about Gal Gadot. I’m sure she is a very lovely person. This is about all the actors and actresses that Hollywood seems determined to force upon us despite audiences and critics alike saying, “no thanks.” Whether accurate or not, these performers’ perceived lack of talent or star-power just isn’t cutting it for most moviegoers, as evidenced by poor box office hauls and middling (at best) audience and critics scores. It’s just that between the recent Snow White drama, the much-maligned “Imagine” video during COVID, and the fact that she was recently awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame when bonafide stars and Oscar winners like Angelina Jolie, Leonardo DiCaprio, Julia Roberts, George Clooney, and Robert De Niro don’t have one, Gadot feels like the current face of this Hollywood trend.

I mean, look, I get it to some degree; Gadot is stunningly beautiful, which, sadly, is probably all it takes for some of the crusty old white-guy film producers to keep greenlighting her projects. She is not a good actress, though. She doesn’t make bad-but-fun action throwbacks like Jason Statham, or charming-but-forgettable romance movies like Dakota Johnson. She hasn’t proven to be particularly funny, either. Perhaps this is a sexist take, but beauty is all she brings to the table. Outside of 2017’s Wonder Woman, which I personally find to be extremely overrated, what else has she done? Several other poorly received Wonder Woman appearances, two unremarkable Netflix Originals (Red Notice and Heart of Stone), and the by-all-accounts not good Snow White (Death on the Nile is fine, but not because of anything Gadot does). Quit forcing her on us, Hollywood. But, like I said above, this isn’t just about Gadot. It’s also about the Josh Gads, Tiffany Haddishes, Michael Ceras, Rebel Wilsons, Fortune Feimsters, and maybe even Chris Pratts of the world. Sorry not sorry, but not everyone is a star because they did a thing once.

MUSICAL BIOPICS

Truth be told, as formulaic as they can be, I really enjoy biopics, especially when they are about an artist I already love. Walk the Line, Ray, Straight Outta Compton, Elvis, and Get on Up are just a few that I could watch on repeat. Even Bohemian Rhapsody, an extremely mid movie, is rewatchable as a sing-along for fans like me. Simply put, I really enjoy learning the backstory behind the hits I’ve been hearing my whole life. As a youngster, I even discovered some musical legends through biopics, like Great Balls of Fire, La Bamba, and The Doors (don’t hate, I was barely 10 years old). That said, after a string of Best Picture-nominated biopics that were also box office hits, a lot of studios have tried to cash in on the trend by making movies about any singer for which they can secure the rights. In fact, there has been a musical biopic nominated for Best Picture each of the past three years (A Complete Unknown, Maestro, and Elvis); however, for every good one, there are at least two that never get much traction. It could be because the artist doesn’t “deserve” a biopic yet, or that the story just isn’t that interesting to begin with. It could even be that the studio just went cheap on the whole thing, so it's a bad movie hoping that the faux-prestige hallmarks and built-in fandom will be enough to carry it to box office success.

In 2024 alone, there were biopics for at least Bob Dylan, Robbie Williams, Kneecap, Pharrell Williams, Bob Marley, Amy Winehouse, Maria Callas, and Milli Vanilli. I don’t know about you, but I feel like we were scraping the bottom of the barrel on some of those. No disrespect to the prolific producer, but was anyone asking for a Pharrell Williams biopic now? My man is nearly 52 years old, presumably with a lot of great work still left in him. Or maybe even a scandal, who knows? It seems way too early for him to have a biopic. How about Amy Winehouse? Maybe it’s because I’m an American so I have less connection to her, but she had one record-setting album. Not to sound callous, but is one hit record and an overdose five years later all it takes to get a biopic nowadays? “Gangnam Style” set records too; are we giving Psy a biopic?

You’ve overplayed your hand, Hollywood. But you don’t have to stop musical biopics altogether — in fact, I’m quite looking forward to Michael (about Michael Jackson) and Deliver Me from Nowhere (about Bruce Springsteen) in 2025 — how about we push pause on those about artists that haven’t reached legend status yet, just to thin out the herd a bit? Otherwise, we’ll be watching biopics for Dave Matthews and Shaboozey in 2031.

GENDER AND RACIAL CAST SWAPPING

Okay, take a breath, and before you start calling me an anti-woke MAGA head, just hear me out because there is some nuance here. I am not against ALL gender and racial cast swapping. I’m only against it when it feels like blatant pandering. For example, I had no issue with Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm in Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four, and I’ve long been a champion for Idris Elba as James Bond. For those two characters, it feels like a “best actor for the job” situation. I also really love the idea of a black Superman because it presents so many interesting avenues in which to explore the idea of “truth, justice, and the American way” that could never be done with a white Superman, especially given current events and how the country has evolved since Superman was first published in 1938. What Men Want, the gender and racially swapped remake of 2000’s What Women Want, is a great example of how these kinds of changes can be used to tell similar stories from new and diverse perspectives.

The thing I would like for Hollywood to stop doing is anything that can simply be described as “Original IP but X”: Ocean’s Eleven but women, Can’t Buy Me Love but black, and so on. Changes done in this vein do little to make for a more clever or fresh take on an original story, and it smacks of a soulless and condescending money grab that is only interested in hitting smaller demographic quadrants. I’d even argue that it comes across as performative wokeness, as in old white producers doing whatever they can to make themselves look like allies. Often, it feels like the idea of gender or race swapping is the starting point on which the movie is even greenlit — “we’ve made too many movies for white men. We need to make one for them now. I don’t care what it is, just dust something profitable off and make it for blacks or women.” For example, did you know after the success of The Expendables, The ExpendaBelles was rushed into development without a script or cast? All the studio had was a pandering idea — The Expendables but women.

Studios didn’t make 2016’s Ghostbusters because “studies have shown that women didn’t connect with 1984’s Ghostbusters, and we have an interesting take on the female experience that we think will appeal to female audiences.” They just thought, “Ghostbusters but women. Women will see that, right?” If you’ve seen that movie, then you know the gender swap adds absolutely zero to the movie. It doesn’t add thematic weight or relevant commentary, nor does it add anything meaningful to the basic plot. There was absolutely no reason for Sony to bend over backwards to replace the male characters with female characters (and vice versa, we can’t forget Chris Hemsworth stepping in to the Annie Potts role) other than to pander to different quadrants. A better idea would have been to make the movie about a group of three male Ghostbusters hiring the first woman to join the team. That’s a worthy swap that provides some thematic gold to be explored about boys’ clubs, sexism in the workplace, glass ceilings, the idea of a “man’s job” v. “women’s work,” and more. Yes, I know… it’s a Ghostbusters movie, it’s not that deep; however, you can make a popcorn movie that is smart, funny, and still has something to say. For the most part, though, it seems like Hollywood already stopped trying to make that happen. It’s so not fetch.