Some More News - SMN: The Ben Shapiro Cinematic Universe / Part Two: Lady Ballers

Episode Date: March 20, 2024

Hi. Last week, we looked at why The Daily Wire is putting out original content that they claim is apolitical. This week, we're doing a deep dive on Jeremy Boreing's magnum opus: Lady Ballers. Sources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16ARuWJTeNByCmW5m5VB1F3k22Gue4g9B7OTWO3XEOpc/edit?usp=sharing  Fuel up fast with Factor’s restaurant-quality meals that are ready to heat and eat whenever you are. Head to https://factormeals.com/morenews50 and use code MORENEWS50 to get 50% off. Check out our MERCH STORE: https://shop.somemorenews.com   SUBSCRIBE to SOME MORE NEWS: https://tinyurl.com/ybfx89rh   Subscribe to the Even More News and SMN audio podcasts here: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/some-more-news/id1364825229   Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ebqegozpFt9hY2WJ7TDiA   Follow us on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/SomeMoreNews Instagram:

Come on, be unfrozen my dog, you detail! Ah, yes, hello. Very good, sorry. I was just getting pumped for our new and thrilling part two of our Ben Shapiro video. This video by watching an extremely legally purchased copy of Lady Ballers and And now for some reason, my computer is acting very strange.

So weird. How after watching a purchased and not at all pirated version of Ben Shapiro's The Daily Wire's The Daily Wire Plus's comedy sports romp Lady Ballers, a movie about a group of men pretending to be trans women in order to win at all sports, this caused my computer to randomly get a virus

unrelated to the first part of that sentence. Anyway, here's some news. In the last episode, we were talking about how Ben Shapiro and Lady Baller's writer, director, actor, super stud, Jeremy Boring and The Daily Wire appear to be very bad at narrative fiction and generally don't understand movies. We talked about this general lack of media literacy

with conservatives too. And then the Oscars happened, sorry, the woke contest. And we got a bunch of great examples of that exact thing. Ben is mad at Zone of Interest because it doesn't show Jewish prisoners because he didn't understand the film. Literally the same way he didn't understand The Last of Us.

Do you seriously have to always see the thing, Ben? Are you a little baby, Ben? Like what? You can't, you see, you can't, you can't, you can't make American History X these days, folks, because of wokeness. You know how American history acts, a film about a man rejecting his neo-Nazi ways

could never, you could never make that movie in today's woke Hollywood, you know, I guess. What? Seriously, is his brain okay? Anyway, they then made a movie that they are claiming is a very big hit and that the positive Rotten Tomatoes score is because people genuinely liked the film,

regardless of their politics. I broke down the concept of grievance media that is basically a right-wing grift of making knockoff movies and other content specifically out of spite for the woke mob. But despite Lady Ballers clearly being that, I showed you a clip where they denied that's the case and welcomed someone to analyze it

from a creative and artistic standpoint. There's this clip. I'd be interested to read that. I'd actually be interested in someone watching the movie who doesn't agree with us, and just analyzing it from a creative artistic standpoint. And I'd like to hear what they, I'm not afraid of,

I don't think any of us are afraid of feedback and critical feedback. Yeah, I would love that. That was the clip. And heck, you got a deal, Beardo. It's okay when I say it. Put on your special some more news glasses. These ones, because it's time to re-enter the Ben Shapiro-verse.

Into the Ben Shapiro-verse 2, part 2, The Omega Cycle 5, Electric Empire, part 1, Lady Bollers, a film two. Are they on your face? They freaking better be. So a bunch of us at the showdy actually watched this film, including people who went to film school and crap and junk and also crap.

Also including people who just watch and like movies. And so let's look at Lady Ballers from a creative and artistic standpoint. And sure, we're also going to absolutely discuss the politics of the film, but just as a disclaimer, for the next segment, we're gonna push the so-called culture war and overt transphobia and misogyny aside and just talk about the filmmaking, structure and comedy,

something they wanted us to do. I cannot stress that enough. They wanted us to do this. And so if they, I don't know, try to pull this video from YouTube, then it means they are liars and cowards who don't believe in free speech and are actually scared

that people will critically judge their film. Let it be known. So let's begin with one of the first scenes of the film. You wanna pep talk, Alex, is that it? You think I'm like one of those coaches on TV who can just give a speech and change the fates of every young man in a locker room? Okay, so this is a big speech where the coach pumps

everyone up to win the game. Sure, fine. I don't actually wanna talk about the scene so much as the use of eyelines, which are exactly what they sound like. Eyelines are where the actors are positioned and looking in a given shot, which is used to establish the geography

of where they are in relation to each other. This is one of the first things you learn about when studying cinematography. So in that clip, we saw this shot of the character, Alex. He's on the right side of the frame and looking to our left. You can see the coach in the foreground to establish their geography. And in the reverse shot,

the coach is on the left side looking to the right. So from those shots, we know that the coach is facing Alex while making his speech. Simple film school 101 eyeline stuff. Now, let's keep watching from the same shot we left off. That I could by dent of my rhetoric alone, so stir the hearts of my team as to snatch victory

from the jaws of certain defeat. Hey, wait a second, did that guy Alex just teleport? That is the same character, right? So why did that sequence of shots feel weird? That's because the director suddenly changed the eye lines for no reason. Alex was on the right side looking left. Then we cut to the coach who's on the left side

looking to his right. And then back to Alex who is suddenly on the center left and looking to the right. So it feels like who is suddenly on the center left and looking to the right. So it feels like he's suddenly behind the coach or something or not looking at him anymore at all. This is called crossing the line or breaking the 180 degree rule. It references an imaginary geographical line that the camera is supposed to stay on one side of especially in a dialogue scene. You have seen it a million times without knowing. Now you can cross the line with a camera move,

which I think is what they thought they did here, but the camera move in this scene didn't actually cross that line, nor did any of the characters move in the scene. The coach is always standing in place on the left side, looking to the right. So there's just no reason to try to break the rule here. And the result looks weird.

And so just this scene alone is filled with this very basic eyeline mistake. To call forth the future and all the wonderful and terrible possibility it holds. Not for the make, but for the bold. That may sound like we're nitpicking a minor technical issue, but it's a very basic thing that every director should know.

It's the directing equivalent of not knowing how to tie your shoes. That's why we started with it. Also, the movie started with it. So to be frank, in order to catch every little creative or artistic issue with the film, I'd have to make it this entire episode. It would have to cover basically every issue with the film, I'd have to make it this entire episode. It would have to cover basically every scene of the film,

shot by shot, and YouTube probably wouldn't allow it. The movie is just not good on a simple technical level. It fails so much first year film school stuff. Like sure, they can afford expensive lights and dollies and all the equipment you need to make a movie, but they don't really know how to properly use that equipment and the result looks very cheaply made. In fact, in some cases, the fancy equipment

actually makes the movie look worse. Exactly. The diversity and inclusion crowd decided to democratize the global games. Now anyone has a chance. Any woman has a chance. Don't you see? Men are faster, stronger, meaner. The entire reason we created women's sports was to keep you out. Holy shit guys, we get it. You got a jib arm. Now could you lock down the shot so I can watch the fucking movie?

I'm actually getting dizzy. Again, it's just really rookie problems. ["The New York Times"] Hey, quick tip. If you're gonna use a really bad television screen filter, you should also apply that to the news logo at the bottom of the screen. Also, maybe use the filter all the time when you're cutting to reporters, otherwise what are we

looking at? Like what exactly is the purpose of that filter if not to show that we're watching TV? Also, why is the TV grainy? That's not what TV looks like anymore. You can film something on your phone and make it look better than that. Okay, what else you got? When's the last time you felt like someone? I mean, I can't always feel like someone. When was the last time you got laid? We're in. Ah, geez, that was some really bad redubbing.

Look at the green guy, watch his mouth. I mean, I can't always feel like someone. Yes, we know bad ADR when we see it. We actually do it all the time on this show. But we're not a movie. And the movie just keeps going. Every scene, every shot has some kind of technical problem with it.

This joke is great. What is this? Is this venison? Squirrel. Look, David, I get it, man. All right, two things. One, the, I get it, man. All right, two things. One, the pacing for that joke is way too slow.

There's this weird pause before he cuts to him spitting it out. Maybe have them in the same shot or something. It'd really snap it up. But also, why is there like this security camera style wide shot of them? It really disconnects the audience from this intimate scene in a small cabin.

And it's showing the back of their heads. So you have to completely flip the next shot around to see their conversation. Okay, more than two things. Because he spits out the food and then the wide shot shows him still eating the food that he spat out in the previous shot. That's a continuity issue.

And sure, it's nitpicking, but it's kinda not when the movie slowly accumulates these basic problems throughout the runtime. Issues that really make the film look disjointed and weird in ways that a typical audience might not be able to articulate, but would subconsciously pick up on. They won't know what exactly,

just that the movie is slightly off and feels very cheap. Kind of like a local TV commercial or one of those pornographies I keep hearing about. Exactly, just that the movie is slightly off and feels very cheap. Kind of like a local TV commercial or one of those pornographies I keep hearing about. This applies to everything from the cinematography to the editing, to the acting, to the music. ["The Music of the City"] What is that, an iDVD menu theme? Sorry, no offense to Will Boring, Music Department for Lady Ballers who I'm sure got the job on merit. The whole movie is filled with these weird

musical pastiches that don't go far enough to be funny and they're not accurate enough to be good. So it's just this bad garbage. Again, they can afford things like extras and locations and even a mansion, although I assume they just asked their fracking friend for that, but they can't really do anything creative with it. There's no artistic intent throughout. That's what gets us those weird overhead shots

and odd disjointed angles. They were just like, oh, that looks neat. It doesn't help tell the story or effectively portray scenes. So on a technical level, it's very subpar. At best, it's basic in the way a student film is. Objectively so. Also objective, they seem to have no idea

how to play basketball in the basketball movie. But it's just starting, can't you see? That is a double dribble. Also, no idea why there's an old timey film grain there. Those scenes take place in like 2008, but mainly the film is filled with really clear violations of the rules that go completely unnoticed. The Lady Ballers team basically wins every game

by constantly fouling the other players to the point that they'd be disqualified. It's not the biggest deal, but it's pretty funny that the movie about basketball doesn't seem to actually know how to play basketball. And speaking of funny things, not this movie. Not this, this movie is not a funny thing.

I know this critique is a little more subjective, but man, it's just not that funny. Alex, it's not a purse. It's a purse. Isn't that worth something? Isn't that worth a shot? Nothing? Nothing. That was awesome, Miss Mile. Who said you could speak to me?

Okay. Dude, that's not nurse. This is a purse, bro. Yuck. To be fair, it's not terrible. It's kind of terrible, but it's very mid. It's a lot of blah, or perhaps even, eh. Like that purse joke is from The Hangover, which is from Seinfeld.

I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but even when they're trying to be edgy, the humor tends to be at least a decade old. During my two weeks of sensitivity training, I discovered that I am not only a raging scoliosexual, but also one 2048th pure Dakota Indian. Cool. When I think comedy, I think of Michael Knowles making an I'm one 16th Cherokee joke.

Ha ha ha. Remember, this is their premiere comedy film, and they're just retelling memes we've all seen on the internet. But to be fair and balanced, there is one pretty good slapstick bit. Good job. And they got one legit decent light chuckle out of me

at exactly 37 minutes and eight seconds when they go to bring back one of their teammates from his life in the woods. I'm a man of peace now. How many badgers have you killed? All but one. It's a pretty silly little joke, you know? Some implied ongoing battle between this guy

and some specific badger. They got me. I chuckled. I thought the joke was funny. And then, shortly after that, they revealed that back in their basketball days, this guy got traumatized for some unknown reason by a rival team's badger mascot humping the air.

Shortly after that, it's revealed that that guy has that old badger mascot tied up in his basement, and apparently has for years, and they never mention it again or revisit this kidnapped, tortured person that one of the main characters were supposed to like, kidnapped and tortured for no reason. And now? Now I don't think the joke is funny.

I withdraw my light chuckle. It's mine now. They just, they really want this to be like a broken lizard type zany comedy, but they don't really have the juice to back it up. After all, as we pointed out in part one, they're not comedians or actors or creative people. They're talking heads and managers

of a political news organization. So it's a lot of, well, that happened style of lines you'd see in a Geico ad. ["We Are Definitely Homeschooling. We are definitely homeschooling. Hey, why would he say that? That scene takes place in an alleyway behind a bar. Why would that guy say, we are definitely homeschooling as a reaction to seeing a stranger in a wig behind a bar?

Did that make sense to you? It didn't make sense to me. Put the scene in a high school if you want to say that line. I think they just wanted to add a bit about how homeschooling is good because they love homeschooling and tried to cram it into any scene they could, which is actually the next big problem with Lady Ballers,

a film that is clearly made by a bunch of really angry and politically obsessed weirdos that want us to know that actually, they're not angry. See, they may want us to analyze the film from a non-political perspective, but they've completely interwoven their politics into every scene of this film. They are simply unable to separate that.

And oftentimes that results in them putting the characters second to the political or moral thing they wanted to say. And before I go any further, I have to read you a quote that we featured in part one of this video series or whatever. It's from the writer and director of this film, Jeremy Boring, stating his intentions for the Daily Wire's original content. Quote, our entertainment content won't be overtly political, but it will reflect our values. Our mission is simple. We will make great entertainment that all Americans can enjoy,

regardless of their political views. If you're fed up with the cultural edicts of our country's self-appointed moral overlords in Hollywood and legacy media, stay tuned. Remember, the general grievance they have is that Hollywood is making films that cram in political messages at the expense of story and the audience's enjoyment. I want you to remember that as we go into our first ad break. Carve it into your desks or your leg or something.

And when we come back, we will talk about more Lady Ballers because I had to watch it, legally of course. I wouldn't steal a car after all. Hi, it's me, Cody. This ad was written for Katie to do, but she's a woman. Hey. Hey. It'll make sense later.

So hello, my pumpkins. There's a lot of stuff you can get done in two minutes. Heck, you can pull out one of your own teeth in two minutes if you're not a wuss about it. Watch! Ah, no, nevermind. But did you know that with Factor, you could have a fresh, never frozen,

chef-crafted meal in just two minutes? I'm not a liar, it's true. Factor delivers restaurant quality meals right to your door for any time of the day. Breakfast time of the day, brunch time of the day, lunch time of the day, Linnertime of the day, dinner time of the day, midnight dinner time of the day, lunch time of the day, prequel breakfast time of the day, all of them times of the day. Factor's meals are ready to heat and eat so there's no prep and no mess. Factor's meals are ready to heat and eat, so there's no prep and no mess! Unlike pulling your own tooth, which creates...

Well, I'll show you. Ah, I'm not gonna do it. And you know what, Swell? They are flexible to your schedule. You can pause or cancel or reschedule your deliveries anytime you want, even during that secret hour that clocks don't tell you about. They are the perfect solution for anyone looking for fast and high quality food that's less expensive than delivery, but just as delicios.

What must you do? Head to factormeals.com slash morenews50 and use code morenews50 to get 50% off. That's code morenews50 at factormeals.com slash morenews50 to get 50% off factor for all your Blinner and Drekfest needs. What the hell is DomGuard virus spanker? And why does it want me to cock malware?

I better give my social security number to see. Okay, hello again. It is still me. I watched Lady Ballers using totally legal means and now my computer only speaks to me through pop-up windows about Bitcoin. We were just talking about how the film is objectively bad,

even when you take politics out of the film. But now we're going to put politics back into the film to show how it's still very bad. But not only is it bad, but it's bad in a way that represents everything the filmmakers claimed was wrong with Hollywood. Specifically, that it's far more concerned with pushing a right-wing agenda than telling a good story.

Allow me to demonstrate. But you just did that entire story to what? To make a name for myself? To get clicks? To gain power? What part of I'm a journalist do you not understand? So that's the villain of the movie, an evil but hot liberal journalist

who's propping up trans rights for clicks. You know how journalists are greedy and powerful and rich and run the world? For the most part, her lines are more straw man than an atheist in a Kirk Cameron film. But then there's this one absolutely baffling scene near the end where she says this. Of course your divorce is affecting your daughter.

70% of all people in prison come from broken family. She's twice as likely to do drugs, twice as likely to drop out of school, four times as likely to have trouble fitting in, three times as likely to end up in therapy, twice as likely to commit suicide, 50% more likely to have health problems. That's a rant about how divorce is bad.

And it barely makes sense in the context of that scene. After all, why in the heck would the evil liberal character want to suddenly moralize about divorce? It doesn't fit her character at all, who up to that point seems to hate kids and love abortions and sex. But again, they didn't care that it made no sense. They clearly just wanted somebody to rant

about the dangers of divorce, but didn't have a way to work it in. And so at its core, Lady Ballers is mostly made up of non-actors, robotically speaking right-wing grievances that have been half-heartedly reshaped to sound vaguely like dialogue. The end result is very similar to a lot of hardcore Christian films

that are thinly veiled church propaganda. Maybe not a coincidence, since Boring was once a pastor. And actually, this movie has a lot of similar DNA to God's Not Dead in that they both struggle to maintain a structure because they have so many messages to fit in. I can't stress this enough. It is literally the exact thing that Ben Shapiro

accuses Hollywood of doing. In that, they sacrifice their story in order to push their politics. I'm not saying this as a critique of the politics in the film. This is from a creative and artistic and technical standpoint on screenwriting. Bear with me, because I have to explain how basic story structure works for a second. Now, nearly all movie scripts have a three-act structure. Traditionally, the thing the movie is about, as in what we see in a trailer, should happen at the end of the first act, or roughly 25% of the way into the story. So in a film like...

...Basketball, they are actually playing basketball by the 20 minute mark. So would you believe that in Lady Ballers, a film with the same length and genre as basketball, they don't actually play as a team until 50 fucking minutes into the movie. That is halfway into the film, because who has time for plot when you're busy making the same culture war... let's

call them jokes, over and over. I'm just glad we were able to get this worked out without having to get social media involved. Please! I have a family! And a queer dog! Of course. But she does have certain advantages over a real woman, right? Well, Stacey, Drake, all I can say to that is,

how dare you? Trans women are real women and thus have no innate differences with other women whatsoever. What's your problem? Never seen a ladies basketball team before? Those aren't. Aren't.

What? Do you get it? Do you get how liberals weaponize being canceled? Do you get it? You ruin this for me and I'll cut you in ways that don't lead to orgasm. I'll cancel you. Did you get it? So non-political. My goodness.

That also happens right after this absolute fucking mouthful. These transhumanist tech oligarchs and nihilist college professors have already convinced every self-righteous housewife with munch house and by proxy to sacrifice their kids on the altar of false virtue. Tell us how you really feel. My goodness, again. The film also doesn't just want to talk about basketball,

specifically of course, but women's sports in general. And so they have multiple montages of the characters competing in wrestling and swimming and it generally just loses focus from the main lady ballers premise and it eats into the runtime. It's really unclear what the tournament they're competing in is, and it seems like they should have just made it about one sport. And like, I get that it's supposed to be a comedy, but as I showed with baseball, even comedies are supposed to be well structured? In fact, that's even more reason to do it. You're not making a Terrence Malick film, you're making a sports comedy. Keep it simple, maybe focus on one sport

and have that sport be played in the first act. Happy Gilmore doesn't start golfing at the fucking halfway point. He does it 20 minutes into the film. And of course, like most broad comedies, you want to keep the character arcs as clear and structured as possible. I guess I need to quickly explain how character arcs as clear and structured as possible. I guess I need to quickly explain how character arcs work.

You can see them in things like the hero's journey or Dan Harmon's story circle or just basic elements of a story. These all function basically the same way, which is that our protagonist, often the main character, has to make a significant change during the film. The aforementioned Happy Gilmore has a temper issue and can't putt,

but as he learns to control himself, he ultimately improves his game and in the end gets what he wants and grows as a person. He is rewarded with sex and grandma, you get it? Scrooge is greedy, ghosts, not greedy. Usually this stuff is established right away. In Happy Gilmore, for example, it's like the first scene where he's playing hockey.

Now, in the beginning of Lady Ballers, we learn that the main character is a washed up high school coach played by Jeremy Boring, director and writer, who in the first 15 minutes of the film says this. I stayed the same and the world changed. Okay, well, dang, that's a very clear and heavily telegraphed starting arc to me.

The first conflict with his character is that he's upset that he can't be rough on students anymore and thinks the world is coddling kids too much. Everyone is telling him to get with the times and he is unwilling. That's not his only defining quality, as our main character, no idea what the character's name is, by the way,

I think they say it once, while also quite cleverly letting us know that the characters were once married. Thank you for picking up Winnie, Robert. We're married for 15 years, Darby. You can call me Rob. Anyway, our main character, Rob, I guess, is also divorced.

And while he seems to spend time with his kid and is a generally good father throughout the film, except for one scene which we'll get to, it's implied that his ex-wife doesn't respect him because he's obsessed with basketball and quote, winning. It's not just winning some stupid game. Hey, basketball is not a stupid game. And winning matters.

It's the key ingredient in becoming a winner. Side note about how bad Lady Ballers is. This movie will not shut the fuck up about winning. Within the first 15 minutes, I was like, I get it. The character cares about winning. I get it. It's funny, the one thing this movie gets right is knowing that it needs some kind of theme

and the character needs some kind of want, but they still manage to screw it up by hammering it into your skull. I said winners are just losers who win. This is the makeup of a winner. The ta-tas of a titan. You're a winner now. Every woman wants a winner. One day it's all about winning, the next day they want you to leave from behind. I do miss being a winner. Yeah you it's all about winning, the next day they want you to leave from behind. I do miss being a winner.

Yeah, you do. Just get out there and win. That's not all of them. We don't have time for all of them. Those are all just from the first half hour. Think of how many more there are. We get it, Jeremy, winning. But lazy writing aside,

this is what drives him to convince a group of former students to pretend to be trans women in order to win at women's basketball and also other sports for some reason. He teams up with the evil liberal journalist, our antagonist and love interest, and begins to win at basketball with his fake trans team. Now, pretending like we want to make this movie,

which we don't, but pretending like we want to make this movie, which we don't, but pretending like we do. What's the clearest arc we can give this guy? You'd probably have his fake trans team lose to a non-trans women's team at the end, right? That would certainly be the turf-ish ending. Or perhaps by pretending to be trans women, these guys learn a thing or two about what it's like to be a woman in society. Maybe our main character realizes that he shouldn't be so harsh on the people he coaches and figures out how to coach with a softer hand.

He gets with the times a little bit and earns the respect of his wife again. He gives up an opportunity at winning when his wife really needs him. Hell, the really obvious version would be that maybe one of them figures out that they are actually trans or queer. In fact, the second male lead seems to be going in that exact direction.

And I guess if I'm really being honest, I've never completely known myself or been known until now. Hey, that was quite a display back there with the waterworks, you all right? I meant every word. myself or been known until now. That was quite a display back there with the waterworks. You all right? I meant every word. This is the best experience of my life, coach. I feel like a brand new woman. See, even the conservative anti-trans film knew to do that

because those are all the natural directions a boilerplate sports comedy like this should go. You don't want to get bogged down in the message. You need simple character arcs. In The Mighty Ducks, our hero reluctantly coaches a hockey team and by the end has embraced the job. In movies like Dodgeball, Outcasts, and Underdogs, embrace themselves and cast off shame.

People learn to work as a team. Even Juana Man ends with the main character developing a new found appreciation for women's basketball. Often the villains represent positions of power. In baseball it's the greedy owners or the owner of a big corporation or a guy who likes to eat pieces of shit.

Actually, Happy Gilmore has another classic conflict of the stuffy establishment players turning their noses at the unconventional protagonist. I needed to talk about all of that to make it clear that this isn't about a political message but rather balancing out an equation. Powerful vs. underdog. Mean person becomes good. Outcasts become accepted.

Stubborn curmudgeon opens up. Aimless layabout straightens up. Basic character shit. I am a woman I Mean all those years playing basketball. I never really felt like myself decade in Hollywood trying to figure out who I really was and then I started working at the dollhouse and This is the real me coach this is who I am Proud of myself for the first time. My parents are proud of me.

That's a scene from the incredibly drawn out resolution of Lady Ballers, where that same character confesses that he's actually trans. And from the tone of it, you might actually think that the movie is going to make a nuanced or profound message here. That while they are cynically using woke culture to gain an advantage, there are real people they are trivializing. Regardless of your opinion of trans

people in sports or trans people in general, trans people exist. This really seems like a natural progression of this character's arc, a change that can happen in their relationship where he has to accept his friend for what he, or I guess she is. That is the natural non-political way this story would go. Have your parents ever not been proud of you, bud? What do you mean? Your parents love you, Alex. That's a good thing. Parents should love their kids unconditionally.

They shouldn't be proud of you unconditionally. They should only be proud of you unconditionally. Should only be proud of you when you do what's right. What we've done here, this, this isn't right. You're confused, I get that. We all get confused sometimes, and if you need help, buddy, I'm gonna help you get it. But you gotta believe me when I tell you this,

you are not a woman. That is seriously how they wrap up that character's arc. She very passionately says that she realizes she's trans and she's proud of herself and her parents accept her and that she is happy and comfortable for the first time ever. And our main character heroically says, actually no, you're wrong.

And that's it. No more using the she pronoun after all, I guess. Sorry, character. They don't analyze it any further or explain why this character feels like an outcast. They just say, no. Also to prove the character's actually a man, he hits them in the groin.

How can you be so sure I'm not a woman? You see, unlike men, women love getting hit in the groin. Again, putting aside your views on trans rights, this is just bad storytelling. This character had a very clear arc and they just kinda cut it off abruptly because it doesn't fit their worldview. He starts that film feeling like an outcast,

discovers something new about himself, and then in the end just goes, ah, nevermind, and that's it. That's the story for the entire ending of this movie, actually, which instead of focusing on a big sports finale or any actual emotional or narrative conflict between characters is basically a series of scenes where characters weave through these overly specific moral parameters. Boys are better at everything.

Oh, Ernie. That's just not true. They're better at basketball. Okay, yeah, basketball. And swimming. Okay. MMA. That goes without saying. They're better at basketball. Okay, yeah, basketball. And swimming.

Okay. MMA. That goes without saying. And running. And javelin. Powerlifting. Shot putt. Hockey.

Karate. Football. Hull vault. Driving. Parking. Most of the STEM fields. Rock and roll. Opening pickle jars.

Okay! Yeah, boys are better at all of those things. But those are just things, Winnie. Things boys made up so we'd have something to be good at. Doesn't matter anyway. Because girls can't become boys. Listen. Women are better at all kinds of things.

They can be nurturing and sensitive and empathetic. Better at doing lots of things at once and caring for a lot of people at once. They're better at communicating and building community and they civilized men. Dude, just say that girls can do the same shit as boys, which is true and move on. Even on the movie's terms, they could say,

well, in our society, boys can tend to be better at some things and girls can tend to be good at some things. But that doesn't mean you can't do those things or be great at them. It's interesting, isn't it, that the trans but not trans Alex character can be good at basketball and sports in general and rock and roll apparently,

as well as be empathetic and sensitive and communicative and all those lady qualities. We're shown this about Alex specifically in the very first scene of the film when he doesn't physically abuse the towel boy character and instead encourages him. Alex can do both, but sadly boring's daughter can only be good at the woman qualities. You can't do or be good at rock and roll or any sports daughter, says the likable protagonist

that we're supposed to like. It's not even connected to the main character's alleged flaw, which is caring about winning this entire fucking time, like way too much. Just have the dad be like, well, it's okay, daughter, winning and being the absolute best isn't everything and leave it at that. Or just don't have this scene.

We'll come back to this scene in a bit actually. But certainly, certainly our main character will have an arc, right? Remember the guy who was obsessed with winning? Surely he was gonna learn something about that and grow somehow and perhaps earn back the love of his wife. It pains me to say it, but you're a winner, Rob. Nah, in short, the ending of this film

is that the Lady Ballers team has to go against another better, blacker fake trans team of men, begins to lose and then admits they aren't trans and forfeits the game. I guess the idea here is that while any man is better at sports than any woman, any black man is better at sports than any white man too. Everybody has to be in their own little boxes, you see,

but it's not racist because they're complimenting their physical attributes. Boy, Ben really should try to watch Get Out Again. Also, if the movie is saying that women need their own separate sports from men, what are they saying about race here? Hmm, just a horrifying, fleeting thought. Anyway, they begin to lose to the black guys

and admit they aren't trans and forfeit the game, specifically by replacing his fake trans players with his daughter and her little friends, and then everyone calls the coach a winner for it. Even the evil liberal journalist for some reason, her motivation is very unclear. Then after zero effort, his wife decides to get back together with him.

I guess she saw him telling his daughter how great women are at community organizing or whatever, and that re-sparks her love, which is weird because that was never part of their conflict. And so in the end, our main character gets everything he wanted without having to actually go through an arc. In fact, he doesn't even make a sacrifice by forfeiting

when you remember that, come closer, you too, Jeremy, come closer, I think you're gonna need to hear this. The team was already losing. The entire arc started with the idea that he's obsessed with winning. So shouldn't he be winning when he gives up the game instead of being rewarded for avoiding the shame of already losing by being allowed to give his daughter

a fun play time? It's not a sacrifice to forfeit when you're already losing, Jeremy. Come closer again. Bad job, man. So basically what's happened here is that instead of the character growing, everyone around him has to suddenly decide

to accommodate him. It's the ultimate divorced guy fantasy where everyone goes, you don't have to change, it was actually us who were wrong. What's interesting is that this is also what happens in God's Not Dead where the atheist villain teacher, spoilers, has a change of heart after he, Spoilers, gets hit by a car and, Spoilers, dies.

But the main character in that film has no arc to speak of. He starts the film being really into God, debates about God, and then ends the film being really into God. And so it's really funny and telling that in these films, the villains and side characters are the ones who actually get character arcs

while the conservative heroes stay exactly the same. Yes, a great metaphor for conservatism, but also just fundamentally bad storytelling, which explains why these movies fail as entertainment. Because what's wild is that they have to go out of their way to do all of this. The ending is really muddled and drawn out, specifically so they can avoid

these other more natural endings. And the only reason to do that is if you're trying to cram a political message into the film. He can that is if you're trying to cram a political message into the film. He can't change, you see, because they liked who he was at the start of the film. He was right that the modern world coddles kids too much, except the movie still ends with little girls getting carried around. They can't have a team of cis women beat them because this movie was made by a bunch of dudes who very firmly believe that any guy is better at sports

than any woman. They go out of their way to make us know that. In fact, there isn't a single non-trans female basketball player represented as a character in this film, which is incredible considering that the film is entirely about women's basketball and the women basketball players who need protecting. Meanwhile, they obviously can't have a character realize

that they're queer because they don't like queer people. Hell, they can't even have the main character sleep with the love interest sex villain because that would make him unfaithful. Wait, you got tied to a furnace and didn't get laid? I like to move slow, Blaine. It's called respect. I get that that's also a joke,

but it's like they wanted to have an implied kinky sex scene earlier in the film, but didn't want to teach improper morals. Even the so-called womanizing characters have to have a scene where they propose to a woman they sleep with. And so ultimately, this film really wants to be a zany mainstream comedy, but has way too many political and moral hangups

to actually be that. They want an underdog team to root for, but they're constantly winning easily. They have to be because the women need to always lose. They want to have a lesson about accepting yourself, but also they don't want the queer characters to accept themselves. They want to have a lesson about accepting yourself, but also they don't want the queer characters to accept themselves. They want the villain to be powerful,

but they don't want to demonize an actually powerful person. They want a raunchy sex scene, but don't actually want that because it's improper. I mean, fuck, they can't even say the word fuck in the film because it gives them a potty mouth or something. (*whistle*) Technical, and you shut the fuck up, the fran's phobic mother fucker.

God, he really is a bad actor. We didn't add that bleep by the way. That bleep is in their film. And I'm pretty sure that's their only fuck in the film. So they gave it to Ben and they bleeped it. So like, why did they do that? Maybe that's the joke? Ha ha, I guess. It's just so obviously politically charged

and puritanical and has such a specific agenda that it makes the movie's characters, jokes, and message extremely muddled. It's bloated, not funny, and confusing. I'm not saying that because I disagree with them or got offended by the jokes. In fact, that's the next thing this fair and balanced critique will cover. Even when you accept this to be an obviously

politically charged movie, it still kind of sucks at that. And so after the break, we're gonna get all up into that. Accepting that Lady Ballers is propaganda, does it even succeed at that? The answer is after the break. Also, it's no. Well, hello there, my sweet ham. Are you one of those news perverts?

Don't be ashamed. We're all news perverts here. And perhaps you want to support like-minded news freaks like us. And wouldn't you know it, there's a way to do that. Just go to patreon.com slash some more news for early and ad free episodes of our show. This show you are listening to or watching for just $5. Both some and even more news ad free. No more ads because true news deviants want that uncut pure news. You sick freaks.

You're disgusting. That's patreon.com slash some more news. We also offer tiers where you can get your pervert name in our credits, or even do an online hangout with myself and Cody. This is written for Katie. And the rest of the depraved some more news crew. So check it out. Patreon.com slash some more news. I'll say it one more time. Patreon.com slash

some more news. I won't say it again. Maybe one more. Okay. Patreon.com slash some more news. Okay. I am done saying it. Sincerely, Katie, who this was written for. I'm Cody. Come here, come here, girl, come here. Come on, I got some RAM for you. You love RAM! Hey, okay, sorry, hi. Okay, sorry.

I lost my laptop after legally downloading and watching Lady Ballers. It started giving me a lot of pop-ups and then it just slithered away with my wallet and car keys, but it'll come back. It needs to sleep sometime, so it'll be back. So hello, we're back. We were just talking about how the movie Lady Ballers that I watched legally has very clearly injected a political message into every scene to the point that it waterlogs the entire film with right-wing piss. But accepting that,

what's probably the most incredible realization is that Lady Ballers is very bad at even being propaganda. Or if you'd rather, it's a bad satire. And that's because it's weirdly insular and very often tells on itself in embarrassing ways. Remember how I said the main character is divorced? I left out the really fascinating detail that his wife left him for a dastardly liberal

played by actual diaper fetishist, Matt Walsh. My body's a sacred temple. I'm all about physical fitness, bug-based foods, mRNA vaccines, equitable and inclusive hiking. Light and love, coach. Light and love. Why would you so transparently admit that you're scared that liberals

are going to steal your wives like that? Also, most Americans wore masks and got vaccinated, a thing this comedy aimed at your average Joe keeps lampooning. You know who doesn't like vaccines? Crunchy vegetarian hippies. Those are the people who were originally anti-vax. So because this movie is so painfully detached

from the mainstream, so weirdly online, it's actually really toothless because of that. These people are so deep in their ideological bubble that they're actually incapable of making a relevant or biting critique of the world, and specifically the left. Matt's depiction of a liberal is so amazingly flaccid that it seems to invoke the 70s stereotype of a hippie.

He also keeps doing this one zen hand motion. There it is. Can't help but notice that they feature the exact same character in that Adam Carolla show. I'm a heteronormative cisgendered white male. Or which I apologize. There he is doing the hand thing. That show is also about a high school teacher

who thinks the world got too woke, isn't it? They only have that one comedy idea, don't they? One problem here is that if you're trying to make political points and your main character already believes in the thing that you do, it's quite boring to see your protagonist constantly not change or learn or grow and to just be right all the time.

Episodes of All in the Family don't end with Archie Bunker saying, My bigotry was correct. Applause. End credits. Bart Simpson doesn't learn crime is good. Catfiche? The main character here should be some liberal set in their ways who learns from their world that like the trans menace is out to

Satan their kids or whatever. But whatever liberal protagonist these guys would come up with would just come off as hollow and unrealistic. This unpleasant hippie is such an inoffensive view of what a liberal is that it seemed like a meta joke about what conservatives think. And yet, despite this, Matt apparently found

the character really taxing to play. I can't say that it was fun making for me because my character was designed to make me uncomfortable at one point in time, and successfully. So I was definitely uncomfortable. He goes on to describe how he was forced to hug another man like he's Heath Ledger preparing to play the Joker.

Except Walsh is still alive, the bastard. Anyway, this was a fun thing I learned, or confirmed watching Lady Ballers, that they really have no idea what leftists or Democrats think or say, and only have this really outdated straw man version of them. And even that straw man version makes them uncomfortable.

And while all liberal men are apparently beatnik long hairs who steal wives, liberal women are godless sluts that tempt and dominate God-fearing conservative men. I don't ever wanna have sex with you. No, I don't ever wanna have sex with you either, Quinn. Really? Oh no, I do.

I really, really do. Again, it's embarrassingly transparent. It also kind of explains why whenever one of these freaks is confronted by like an actual journalist, they immediately choke. Because unlike the evil journalist in this film, actual journalists aren't sneering liberals talking about how much they love abortions.

These movies exist the same way we have arguments in our heads where we always win and everybody claps. It's conservative fan fiction of how they want the world to be. And what it actually reveals is how incredibly removed from reality they are. Again, it reminds me a lot of that God's Not Dead film, which also includes a sneering atheist reporter

lobbing T-ball level questions. So what do you say to people who are offended by your show, not just because of the hunting, but because you openly pray to Jesus in every episode? Ah yes, classic journalism stuff. See, if you're gonna lampoon or satirize something, you kind of have to understand it first. And what this film really revealed

is that they haven't ever actually thought about what liberals or leftists believe in any analytical way. Same goes for trans people. There are two characters in this film that at some point aspire to be trans. And in both cases, their motives are completely unlike what actual trans people experience. The basketball player, Alex,

seems to be attracted to womanhood because the movie presents it as being easier for them. Everyone compliments and coddles and celebrates you. Meanwhile, the daughter says she wants to be a boy because she thinks boys are better at everything. So there you have someone wanting to be a trans woman and someone wanting to be a trans man.

And perhaps you noticed that both of their motivations are deeply misogynist and based on the idea that women have it easy and men are better. Women want to become men so they can do things men are allowed to be good at. And men want to become women so they can dominate women at things they don't want women to do. It's made up.

It's almost like this movie was written by a right-wing dude with no ability to empathize. You know, something a writer really needs to know how to do. The end result is just not very persuasive or interesting. Like, if a trans person watched this, I doubt they would even feel challenged or insulted by it. And that's because they are trying to explore ideas that they actually have no idea

how to intelligently talk about beyond a series of shallow right-wing talking points. I'm pretty conflicted about saying this, but watching this film, I couldn't help but notice that they are just bad at their own propaganda, so bad that I kept wanting to fix it for them. There are even points where they accidentally make a case against themselves and don't even realize it.

Yeah, boys are better at all of those things. But those are just things, Winnie. Things boys made up so we'd have something to be good at. So a patriarchy. The patriarchy? What he's describing here is art and sports and maths and sciences and transporting oneself, you know, doing stuff, things, the levers of society

and how those things are made up for men to do and to be good at. Whereas women are good at intangible social abilities that lend themselves to, well, let's just watch. Doesn't matter anyway. Just girls can't become boys. Boys clearly can't become girls. Listen, women are better at all kinds of things. They can be nurturing and sensitive and empathetic.

Better at doing lots of things at once and caring for a lot of people at once. They're better at doing lots of things at once and caring for a lot of people at once. They're better at communicating and building community and they civilized men. So mommy stuff and being a mommy, that's what they mean, right? Now one could think that compassion, multitasking, caring for a lot of people at once, sensitivity,

communication and civilizing others could maybe mean politics, but that's a nanny state, right? A mommy state, right? That's bad. See, men can have fun and play games and make art and also be in charge. Women are good communicators and organizers, but they can't be in charge of or do anything,

but they're also responsible for civilizing men. So to recap so far, a literal father explains to his daughter that she's good at mom stuff, but not society stuff, which is unfairly structured around a patriarchy. It's just so obvious and absurd. Hey, you know who else needs to be good at multitasking, taking care of lots of people, civilizing others and communicating?

A coach, Jeremy. Fucking moron. Now I could single out more moments like these, including multiple scenes that seem to imply that gender is indeed a social construct. But in terms of how this fails, even as anti-trans propaganda, well, a lot of that stems from the very basic fact that if you're going to make a film

about washed up high school athletes taking on professional women's basketball players, you need to admit to yourself that they would probably get their asses kicked. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there.

Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there.

Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. Get out of there. NBA player go against an average dude or in the movie's case, some former high school athletes and their towel boy.

And as I mentioned before, this film doesn't even have a single women's basketball player represented as a character and actually seems to hate the WNBA. They have repeated jokes from like 20 years ago about how nobody watches women's basketball. And the other players are mainly portrayed as pouty props. Their starting premise is that any man could beat any woman at any sport.

It has no respect for or interest in the thing it's claiming to defend and protect, to the point that it seems ignorant and hostile to it. And that's just so weird to do when the thing you're trying to say is that this is all about preserving the dignity of women's sports. At least, I think that's what they're saying. I'm not actually sure they even

know the point of this film. Here's a quote from Michael Knowles describing what he thinks the film is about. Quote, I think these left-wing reviewers are playing themselves here. I think they've totally missed the point of the movie, which is no one cares about women's sports. We care in the sense that if our daughters are playing a sport, we don't want to see them cheated of their trophies. We care in the sense that the whole point of establishing women's sports is that they can play their own games and not have to compete against men to whom they will lose. Hey, just jumping in here with some great ADR to say that only someone who doesn't care or know about sports would say that no one cares

about women's sports. What an absurd thing to say. Also, I bet the women who play them care. Are women no one? As the movie makes clear, pretty much. The message that specifically the filmmakers don't respect or care about women's sports is indeed made considering the women athletes are a punchline

and a prop throughout the film until they're literally infantilized and lifted up by grown men in order to pretend that they can play basketball. So very bad job on your terrible message, I guess. All right, perfectly executed ADR over. But either way, that's not the point of the movie. I watched it legally.

They make a few jokes about the lack of excitement for women's sports, but most of the movie. I watched it legally. They make a few jokes about the lack of excitement for women's sports, but most of the film is focused on trans women specifically. You can't just say the point of your film is something that isn't the point of the film, because if this film was about women's sports, you'd assume there would be non-trans women athletes represented in it.

Like you'd assume you'd introduce a cis woman player for the daughter to look up to or something. Unfortunately, the one female basketball player that could be described as a character doesn't have a name and her function in the plot is to attend an orgy and get impregnated by two brothers. That's it, That's her role. But if they did have a woman basketball player

in their movie about women and basketball, then instead of the brilliant, we're already losing, so actually we forfeit narrative climax of the film and her hero dad telling her that she'll never be as good at her interests as all boys, she could look up to a cis woman on one of the other teams. Then during the final game, the team actually struggles and coach Boring has to step up

and be a good communicator like a stupid woman. And he coaches the team to play better against this actual challenge. The men get it together and start dominating again, but the coach sees how it's affecting this other main character cis woman basketball player sees how it's affecting this other main character, cis woman basketball player, and how that's affecting his daughter. Then through an act of disgusting, womanly compassion,

he forfeits the game so the other team can play another team of cis women, which is allegedly what the movie is supposed to be about. Thus the coach would actually be sacrificing something he wants, winning, for something he needs, his daughter and wife's love and support. But that would also require exploring the qualities the movie says that women have. The ex-wife character, the romantic interest

we were supposed to hope gets back together with the protagonist apparently left him because he stopped winning, which doesn't seem very compassionate. We don't ever see these qualities that our hero so values. Every other moment with her is simply a function of reminding us that the coach is trying to convince her to get back with him.

She isn't shown being nurturing or multitasking or communicating or caring for a lot of people at once or civilizing anybody. So showing her being touched by this speech about women's roles. It can be nurturing and sensitive and empathetic, better at doing lots of things at once and caring for a lot of people at once.

Is weird. He's always thought this, right? That men do the stuff and women be the mommy. Why is she like, ooh la la, my love at last? Like, did they actually break up because he once told her that she was a terrible mom or that she'd never be a good multitasker? What is going on?

In a movie about protecting women and women's spaces, the movie could have shown literally a female character sticking up for herself in any way. But this film doesn't do any of that, probably because the film seems to really not like women or their womanly qualities. Nearly all of the characters that push this evil trans lie are represented by women, and literally all of the characters that push this evil trans lie are represented by women.

And literally all of the women characters functionally or thematically facilitate and promote that evil trans lie. The journalist who is promoting the fake trans team for clicks. The misguided and overzealous ally who originally signs up Alex for the race. The ex-wife who seemingly just believes

whatever her current spouse does and remarried to a tree-hugging, overly compassionate liberal, the daughter who spouts the insidious ideology, the teacher who we presume taught her said ideology, and of course, Alex, the possibly trans woman. Remember, women are great communicators and multitaskers and organizers of people,

but they shouldn't get degrees or be in charge or do anything. If we let them, they'd implement more of this transness on the world. The movie ends up leaving you with this general feeling that they care less about protecting women's spaces and more about keeping women out of their own. It's the illusion of praising and protecting women

while disrespecting and excluding them. It's very patronizing. Here's what Alex says about how to easily be a woman. Guys, it's easy. Women are just like men, only better. Just shave your legs, tell each other how brave you are for things that require absolutely no physical courage. And don't be afraid to cry at work.

Easy peasy. First of all, no real physical courage? Get out of here, what a stupid phrase that is. And since when was the definition of bravery something physical? You fucking dorks. Also, physical bravery is a woman being around you any day of the week, you fucking creep, Jeremy. What are you talking about?

Women also, the thing that you love about women is that they have babies, which is, I'm sorry, physically courageous to do. Like you don't know what you believe. Second of all, that was like five things. Sixth of all, excellent use of the main female character to nod along with your casual misogyny. That is not the only example of that being

her character's function, by the way. Seventh of all, women be crying. It's just dripping with stuff like this. One of the morals of the film seems to be that women are inherently bad at sports, but great at civilizing men. It's this childish idea that men are the brilliant and capable ones who should be in charge

and do all the stuff, but also they need women to tell them not to eat worms. The love interests are a single sinister, whoreish bitch who's both hypersexual and will not have sex with him. And the actual love interest who is a certain way, probably, I assume she has traits. They'll show them one day.

We don't actually know because she doesn't do anything or display any qualities beyond being a mother. The entire film seems subconsciously wrapped around the idea that all women are either mommies or godless sluts. And it's just weird and gross and obvious, and also just generally wrong, like incorrect. And so going back to why this fails on a technical and storytelling level, it's hard to enjoy a film

that's lampooning or satirizing something that just isn't at all accurate. Like the base premise of that just isn't at all accurate. Like the base premise of the film isn't true. So much so that Ben Shapiro himself has accidentally said so. Now to be fair, I think I'd actually suggested to the Grain Boys that they do this as a doc. Yes.

I originally went to them and I said, you guys should like go try out for a bunch of ladies leagues. And that became not possible because as it turns out, most ladies leagues don't allow in actual men. Men and they weren't willing to go the full distance. Right, you can't just put on a wig and say you're trans. They actually test you and make sure you're taking hormone therapy.

The movie not only ignores this, but makes up a new world where trans people are treated like royalty, where cis men are playing softball against little girls and walking into women's locker rooms while everyone celebrates them, where everyone lives under this constant threat of being canceled and fucking local sports journalists

hold all the power. The entire film is just Jeremy Boring and Ben Shapiro saying, hey, what if we lived in a world where men can pretend to be trans to win at sports? That would be so crazy if that was true. And here's a film making fun of that fictional thing. And that's the movie.

A satire of an illusion they created. There's no actual critique of reality, but rather this exaggerated and fake scenario based on the fears of this very concentrated and terminally online ideological bubble watching libs of TikTok clips. rather this exaggerated and fake scenario based on the fears of this very concentrated and terminally online ideological bubble watching Libs of TikTok clips. And so of course, that echo chamber

is going to love this film. It's by and for them. Despite the fact that the real world is basically the opposite of this premise. Trans people are under constant attack. Journalists are losing their jobs in droves. It's just so toothless and meaningless to make a film where that's not the case

and pretend you're doing satire or something. And that's not a political observation. That's just what reality is. I'm sure many of you have already seen that clip of Shapiro and Boring talking about how they couldn't make their premise as a documentary because it's not happening and isn't possible. But there's another clip that illustrates the same issue. So I'm gonna say again, the basic premise of the film isn't true, so much so that Ben

Shapiro himself has accidentally said so. So the way that this basically works, I wake up, my kids wake me up every morning at like 6 a.m. and I get up and I make breakfast for them. I get them dressed, I get them ready for the day. Meanwhile, I might be like just perusing the news on my phone to see if I have to supplement for the show. I leave the house at like 7.45 because that's basically when they leave the house for school.

I go into the show, I film the show, I film extras, I do phone calls, I try to work out. I try to get everything done between the window 7 45 a.m. and 3 30 p.m., which is when they get out from school. Very often, I'm the one who picks them up from school. I do not work from the time I pick them up from school to the time they go to bed, which right now is about 7 30. So that four hour period, I'm basically at their disposal.

I'd wager that during those six hours of his day with his kids, he's communicating, multitasking, nurturing, civilizing them, you know, gay women shit. Like Ben Shapiro's wife is a doctor. He used to brag about her all the time. He's of course proud of his doctor wife. He was likely attracted to her partly because of her intelligence and abilities

and tolerance of him as a person. I think it's safe to wager that he wouldn't actually agree with his wife being told at a young age, being a doctor is boy stuff. You can and should go be a mom instead. Actually, she can be both, it turns out. It's just odd and sad that this big project that represents Shapiro and his ideology

and views and company actually kind of doesn't. Like, come on, Ben, did you learn nothing from Chip Chilla? He is living the life of a lib, doing his gay little play acting with his elite friends and taking care of his kids like some cuck woman while his man of a wife saves lives in her high stress job. Like, I don't know what kind of doctor she is, but you know what I mean. cuck woman while his man of a wife saves lives in her high stress job. Like I don't know what kind of doctor she is, but you know what I mean?

Anywho, end of Lady Baller's review. We did it. Another sweet daddy Walsh adventure comes to a satisfying conclusion. What are you talking about? I don't understand how anything you did helped to make this situation better. Don't you? Whoa! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Cut from the wide to this weird panning shot. Okay, I have to stop talking about this movie. Like I am terrified to even mention

that Jordan Peterson has a Thanos post credits cameo because it'll stretch our runtime by six days and I'll die of dehydration. They don't give him a single line by the way, probably because they tried and he just kept ad-limbing about traffic laws being woke harbingers of post-modern tyranny. So in terms of objectively critiquing the art

and comedy and craft, Lady Ballers is not a good film. Any honest person could tell you that. I mean, I loved it, but not for the reasons they want. And we already explained why in the last video, that the entire film, along with the Daily Wire original content catalog is just built on spite. It's just a knockoff of better, less political films,

ironically labeled as the non-woke option. And while they might not admit to it, it probably has to do with the fact that Ben Shapiro, Jeremy Boring and all of these other pundits are just failed actors and writers. Again, we talked about that in the last video. It's weird if you didn't watch the last video, but they were in fact a bunch of failed writers

and actors and directors. And you could argue that at least at some point, they probably didn't care about politics so much as attention. And in fact, we probably could have saved the world a lot of grief if we just let Ben Shapiro make a series of terrible films and pretended they were good.

And honestly, I think that even after becoming a pundit, Ben probably would have given that up if it meant making Hollywood films, but he doesn't. So he's mad and bitter, and needs to say that it's because the studio system is woke. It's so woke, you guys.

I don't have a choice but to use my media company to make non-woke films. It's so silly that he's acting like he's begrudgingly making this stuff. Like, oh no, I gotta make movies. Like, Ben, just say that's what you're doing and what you wanna do. Don't be embarrassed.

I get it. You wanna be embarrassed. I get it. You wanna make movies. We love movies. In fact, when you set aside the fact that Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire are racist grifters who are objectively putting more harm than good into the world, on paper, the idea of an internet company

creating a production studio outside of the Hollywood system, it's actually really good. It's probably part of the draw in what they do because the one thing that they are almost correct about is that the film industry is incredibly guarded. It's impossible to break into, even for people with cool news shows, even for them,

even for them, even for them. And is run by out of touch rich executives making the worst decisions imaginable. They can't even make a fucking Looney Tunes movie right now. So if there's one big takeaway from the Daily Wire's original content, besides it's sucking, it's that frankly, more people should do this,

preferably not right-wing ghouls. Like heck, we here at the Showdy also like to act and be in things. I wish we could start something, but I can't even maintain a computer that doesn't steal my wallet and walk away. So what I'm really saying here is, Ben, call me. We'll write something together, something just,

just terrible, but that's okay. It's'll write something together. Something just, just terrible. But that's okay. It's our first script together. It can be about two dudes playing rock music together. Then they have to rob a casino. We'll call it Rock in a Card Place. That's money right there, Ben. That's money in the bank.

You have my number. I carved it into your car. ["The Star-Spangled Banner"] Sorry about your car, but you made me watch Lady Ballers, so I had to fuck up your car. Hey, Warmbo, what did you think of Lady Ballers? Okay, well, thanks for watching everybody.

Make sure to like and subscribe. Also, we've got a podcast called Even More News. You can check it out where the podcasts are. Also, we've got a Patreon at patreon.com slash some more news. So check us out there. We've also got merch and this guy's on the merch. He's not doing this, but he is on the merchandise. So look at that stuff online and thank you so much again.

Like and subscribe. You just bruise your eyeballs. subscribe.