The Misinformation Age

We're in the thick of election season, and I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone out there that the Internet has proven to be a spectacular source of misinformation.  Some recent stories that have come out recently have made this very clear to me.  

The first, more entertaining one is the recent three-part series posted by Buzzerblog.com, a blog devoted to game shows, that tried to confirm the existence of a rumored lost episode of the PBS kids' game show "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego" where a contestant had been injured.  After contacting multiple people connected with the show, archivists, and television stations, reporter Christian Carrion concluded that the episode had never existed, and every bit of information out there on the web about it had been fabricated.  This information includes multiple Wiki pages with quotes from the episode, mentions by websites like Mental Floss, and even a page at the Lost Media Archive that has since been corrected.  

This is far from the first instance of misinformation about a piece of kids' entertainment being taken as fact.  A more egregious example, pointed out by a commenter on Reddit, is the admission by reporter Jordan Minor in 2016 that he had essentially invented an extra season of the '90s cartoon "Street Sharks," complete with voice credits and episode descriptions, and then submitted the information to various sites like TV Tome when he was in middle school.  The information proliferated all over the internet, to the point where  some "Street Sharks" fans were convinced that they remembered characters and episodes that Minor had made up.  His admission of guilt is titled "How I Used Lies About A Cartoon to Prove History is Meaningless on the Internet."     

You've probably heard of the Mandela effect, the phenomenon where false memories can be shared by different people, sometimes spontaneously.  There is no 1990s genie movie starring the comedian "Sinbad," and the Berenstain Bears were never the Berenstein Bears.  However, due to factors like misinformation, lack of correction, and other types of reinforcement, the false memories can proliferate.  I've experienced several instances of this related to pop culture from when I was very young.  For instance, I was convinced for years that I had seen an '80s version of "Land of the Lost," which was probably my mind combining memories with a different adventure show involving river rafting.  But I was convinced enough for a while, that I definitely argued about it on the Internet, and probably spread some misinformation myself.        

And this is all kind of fun and amusing when we're looking at pop culture examples, but of course, it's not just pop culture.  Over in the linguistics world, there's been a big uproar over the Scots language version of Wikipedia.  It turns out that nearly half of the wiki's entries - thousands and thousands of pages - had been written by an American teenager who didn't actually know any Scottish.  Most of his entries are mangled gibberish taken from auto-translation tools, or straight copies of English entries with a couple of misspelled Scottish words tossed in the mix.  From the contributor's statements, it seems like no malice was intended, but the damage is extensive.  Not only does this mean that half of the Scots wiki is essentially garbage, but all the linguistics and translations tools that used it as a reference are likewise in trouble.  And everyone who ever used those tools for Scottish translations is also screwed.  The Wiki administrators are still debating whether to try and fix the errors, or to just scrap all the bad entries and start over.     

The Scots Wiki disaster was made possible because there was very little oversight by the people in charge.  Anyone can edit Wiki entries, and the organization relies heavily on its contributors.  Unfortunately the Scottish language wiki, and many of the other wikis for various languages, have few contributors and thus a bad apple can have an outsized impact.  The rogue contributor started out as a twelve year-old who thought that he was being helpful, and it wasn't until seven years and over  twenty thousand entries later that somebody finally noticed what was going on.  

And so, as we continue along in the season of "fake news" and QAnon conspiracies, keep some of these examples in mind.  If a couple of misguided kids and pranksters could rewrite people's memories and mess with an entire language, think about what the real baddies are doing on the Internet.

---

"Killing Eve," Year Three

Spoilers for the first episode.

Perhaps inevitably, "Killing Eve" is on a serious decline. Phoebe Waller Bridge long ago took a backseat creatively, now only remaining as executive producer. We have yet another new showrunner, Suzanne Heathcote, and a bunch of new characters to tangle with this year. After the second season finale killed off Eve, which we all knew wasn't going to stick, the premiere killed off Kenny instead, setting up the season's big mystery and a reason for all the big players to get back to work. Eve and Villanelle don't really address anything that happened last year, instead pursuing their own goals separately, despite multiple instigating events that seem designed to pit them against each other again. They don't get a decent scene together until near the end of the season.

Instead, the big theme this year is family. Carolyn loses her son, but immediately has an exasperating daughter Geraldine (Gemma Whelan) come home, who insists on reconnecting with her mum in the wake of the tragedy. Konstantin is putting together an exit plan to get himself and his daughter Irina (Yuli Lagodinsky) away from the Twelve, which is complicated by Villanelle learning about the plot and being a very bad influence on Irina. As for Villanelle, she's having an annoying existential crisis herself, while also trying to move on from assassin work and advance in the Twelve organization. She's put back in contact with her old trainer Dasha (Harriet Walker) and spends some time digging up parts of her past. Oh yes, we also get to meet Villanelle's family this year, because why not?

Notably, the one person who doesn't get to do much soul searching or reconnecting with any family is Eve, aside from a few brief check-ins with Niko. This is because "Killing Eve" is no longer about Eve, but the Villanelle show, with supporting appearances by Konstantin, who keeps escaping every attempt on his life for increasingly implausible reasons. And as the Villanelle show, there are some good episodes here and there, and some good kills. I really enjoy Carolyn's subplot this year, and just about everything to do with Dasha. Even Villanelle's weirdo family reunion is a decent watch as an individual episode. The trouble is that none of it adds up to a good season of television, and put in the context of the older episodes, it looks even worse. At this point the entire premise of the cat-and-mouse crime show has run its course, and the writers don't seem much interested in exploring Eve and Villanelle's twisted romantic relationship anymore, aside from a few very tame encounters. What remains feels mostly like filler.

I still like all the characters and the performances enough to keep watching, but "Killing Eve" desperately needs some course correction. It's already starting to repeat certain plot points, and Constantin has betrayed everyone at least twice by now. Several of the other regulars are forced into uncharacteristic behavior on very flimsy pretexts. Carolyn trying to tolerate the dramatics of her overly empathetic daughter starts out as funny, but quickly becomes tedious with repetition. Villanelle's dissatisfaction manifests in the usual destructive ways, but nothing really gets resolved. The new additions have some promise, but the show doesn't seem interested in developing any of them, instead relying on our fondness for the core cast. The production values are still strong, with Villanelle still appearing in all manner of fabulous outfits, and visiting the most picturesque parts of Europe, but the eye candy can only compensate for so much. And it infuriates me that Sandra Oh is given so little to do.

In short, "Killing Eve" is spinning its wheels and running out of reasons to continue being a series. I'll happily watch for another year or two if the show continues in the same vein, but more out of a sense of obligation than anything else. I really did love the first year of "Killing Eve" and was happily onboard for the second. Hopefully year three is just a temporary dip in quality instead of a permanent one.
---

Rank 'Em: Laika Studios

The Laika animation studio has been around for well over a decade now, and been responsible for some excellent animated films. It's good to see the tradition of stop-motion animation still being kept alive, though the Laika films have always been a little under the radar. Here are the five films they've released so far, ranked from best to most mediocre. I don't think there's a bad one in the bunch.

"Coraline" - The first, and still the best of Laika's films is this spooky horror tale, directed by Henry Selick and based on a book by Neil Gaiman. It's such a fantastically unsettling piece of work, with these nightmarish images and ideas - all beautifully handcrafted, of course. I also like that it pushes the boundaries of children's media a little, with a genuinely frightening villainess straight out of old school fairy tales, and just a touch of bawdy humor. "Coraline" was also instrumental in launching the recent 3D wave, a year before James Cameron's "Avatar," using the technology as a storytelling tool. When Coraline travels into the world of the Other Mother, the film suddenly gains entirely new dimensions of depth and volume that the stop-motion animation takes full advantage of.

"Paranorman" - This is an oddball film, a boys' adventure movie about a kid who can see and interact with the paranormal. The character designs are odd, the story is a little offbeat, and the whole look and tone of the production is weird. For most of its running time, "Paranorman" is very much a comedic zombie romp on roughly the same wavelength as "Scooby Doo," but then the final act swerves into much darker and melodramatic territory to great effect. The "Angry Aggie" sequence is technically amazing, and so emotionally charged in a way that rivals any feature made for adults. It's one of my favorite scenes from any animated media of that era. Also, I love that the reveal that one of the characters is gay is treated like such a non-issue, it's literally the punchline to a running gag.

"Missing Link" - I don't really understand why this is the most highly lauded Laika film to date. It's a perfectly good one, about a lonely Sasquatch who decides to go looking for his Yeti relatives after meeting a British explorer. The voice acting performances are very strong, and the story is a very charming one, but it doesn't stick out to me as one of Laika's better films. It's a perfectly safe sort of children's adventure film, with a great message, and fantastic production values, and there's nothing wrong with that. It reminds me an awful lot of the Aardman "Pirates!" movie because of the similar main characters, and because both films are much better than they seem at first glance. And of the three bigfoot-themed animated films that came out in 2018-2019, "Missing Link" is definitely the best.

"Kubo and the Two Strings" - It's not that I don't like "Kubo" or think that it's a terrible film, but I have a couple of major issues with it. The first is that it uses a Japanese fantasy context and doesn't really do the work of actually engaging with that culture except on the most superficial level. Second, the plotting is pretty slapdash, with a bungled ending. There's the potential for the film to hit the emotional highs of "Coraline" and "Paranorman," and it certainly tries to reach that, but I don't think it ever got there. On a technical and aesthetic level, however, the film is an animated marvel. There are so many gorgeous visuals here, from the origami figures to the giant puppet foe. And I love the Regina Spektor cover of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" that plays over the end credits sequence.

"Boxtrolls" - Here's another case of a film that has all the right elements in place, but never quite figures out how to make the best use of them. I like the idea of the boxtrolls, and their funny little community where you're named after whatever kind of box you adopt - resulting in a main character named "Eggs" - but the plotting is a mess, and the villain often comes across as more sympathetic than the lead. My favorite part of the film is the credits sequence, where two minor characters are having an existential discussion while also showing off the Laika animation process.
---

"Homecoming," Year Two

Minor spoilers for the first season.

Amazon's "Homecoming" is one of those shows that probably should have stayed a limited series. Its primary selling points were its star, Julia Roberts, and its director, Sam Esmail. Neither are involved with the second season, though writers Eli Horowitz & Micah Bloomberg remain onboard. Esmail has been replaced by the perfectly serviceable Kyle Patrick Alvarez, while our leading lady is now Janelle Monae, playing a new character, Jackie.

Jackie wakes up in a rowboat on a lake, with no memory of who she is or how she got there. A string of clues and encounters leads her to believe that she was with a man named Alex who attacked her, and there's some connection to the company Geist, which was behind the Homecoming program in the first season. Returning cast members include Hong Chau as Audrey Temple, who has been bumped up to almost a co-lead, and Stephan James as Walter Cruz. A few other familiar faces make brief appearances. New characters include Geist's founder Leonard (Chris Cooper), and a Department of Defense representative, Bunda (Joan Cusack).

It's rare that a puzzle box mystery series unfolds quite as mechanically as this season of "Homecoming" does. The first two episodes (of seven) show Jackie working her way from the boat to the offices of Geist, uncovering one odd thing after another, and setting up a series of questions. Who was trying to call her when she accidentally dropped her phone in the lake? Why did she and Alex have a fight the previous day in a local bar? Why is there a cantaloupe in Alex's hotel room? The next four episodes set about showing us exactly what happened through flashbacks and answering all those questions. The revelations are neatly spaced out enough to be satisfying over multiple episodes, but there's also a maddening shallowness to the narrative. "Homecoming" feels too preoccupied with plot mechanics to really give enough time and attention to its characters. And that's frustrating, because there's no shortage of acting talent here, and the setup has plenty of potential.

With only seven half-hour episodes this year (down from ten), the show is streamline down to the essentials. It doesn't have many pauses in the action, and there are barely any notable side characters. It maintains a sinister mood and keeps the established storytelling device of ending every episode on an extended static shot - sort of a visual ellipsis. However, I came away from this season feeling like I hadn't gotten to know Jackie and Audrey nearly as well as I should. There's a big, audacious ending that doesn't quite feel earned, because the show doesn't spend enough time with Walter Cruz.

The show retains its high production values, and accomplishes the rare trick of being accessible to newcomers, because its mystery is fairly self-contained. However, it never manages the same degree of thrills or is nearly as visually or aurally striking as the first season. Losing Julia Roberts was unfortunate, but Sam Esmail's exit had a much bigger impact on the show. Gone are the Hitchcock and Kubrick influences, and the stylistic idiosyncrasies that remain feel like they're just there to maintain consistency with the first season.

The performances are still good enough that they make the season worth the watch. Janelle Monae is very good, playing two different sides of the same coin to great effect. While I like the Audrey character here, and Hong Chau does a nice job of giving her some moral shading, I also think that taking her in a more conventional direction from the previous season is a bit of a disappointment. Cooper and Cusack both managed to make the best of their limited screentime, and I wish that we'd gotten more of them.

"Homecoming" was such an unusual, singular series when it premiered, and I'm not surprised that the new season is much less ambitious and seems to have lost a great deal of nerve. It often feels more like a side-story or a half-hearted epilogue than a proper continuation. For those who enjoy mystery shows and for fans of the main actors, it has its charms, but they're pretty minor ones. If Amazon wants the series to continue, they have some work to do.
---

"Altered Carbon," Year Two

Minor spoilers ahead

The body-swapping, practically immortal badass Takeshi Kovacs is back, this time in a new "sleeve" played by Anthony Mackie. Thirty years after the first series of "Altered Carbon," he's returned to his old haunts on the planet of Harlan's World, taking on a new murder mystery, while continuing his quest to find his old flame, Quellcrist Falconer (Renee Elise Goldberry). Among Tak's allies are a mercenary, Trepp (Simone Missick), Tak's old AI pal Poe (Chris Conner), Poe's new AI friend Dig 301 (Dina Shihabi), and yakuza boss Tanaseda Hideki (James Saito). The season's villains include a corrupt politician, Danica Harlan (Lela Loren), and the commander of an elite military force, Colonel Ivan Carrera (Torben Liebrecht). A few other old faces also return, but I'll leave viewers to discover in what capacity.

Despite a new leading man and a significant time skip, this series of "Altered Carbon" is clearly a continuation of the first series and takes pains to ensure viewers are aware of all the connections. Quite a few members of the original cast return, some in expanded roles, and we're yet again following Tak on an adventure that has an awful lot of connections to his and Quell's past as doomed revolutionaries. What's different is the tone of the show, now more concerned with romances and personal relationships than sci-fi worldbuilding. There's still plenty of angst and flashy violence and grungy cyberpunk aesthetics, but the universe feels a little smaller and more familiar. It's less exploratory and more concerned with examining its existing concepts. The budget has also noticeably been trimmed, resulting in fewer elaborate sets, a smaller cast, and less fancy CGI.

I like Anthony Mackie here, but his Takeshi Kovacs is more subdued and less imposing than the first season version played by Joel Kinnaman. This helps in his quieter scenes with Renee Elise Goldberry, but in others he tends to be overshadowed by the more bombastic performers, like Missick and Conner. And speaking of Conner, while I'm glad that Poe was carried over from the first series, I don't think giving him a bigger role was the best idea. He's much less interesting with a more conventional set of problems, given a new love interest and saddled with a nasty glitch that causes memory loss and time gaps. Goldberry, on the other hand, greatly benefits from more screen time and prominence, after essentially being promoted to a secondary protagonist. The character of Quellchrist is so outsized, she should be impossible to play, but Goldberry had no trouble convincing me she was a legendary warrior and scientific genius.

However, what I continue to appreciate "Altered Carbon" for the most is its willingness to engage with more complex science-fiction concepts. This series might be more simplified and streamlined than the last one, with only eight episodes and some really single-minded villains, but it's still full of body-swapping, needle casting, stacks, clones, synths, nanobots, AIs, virtual worlds, and a few new tricks too. The mystery is well laid out, and the investigation leads to some interesting new corners of the "Altered Carbon" universe. It's still also unusually violent and brutal, and committed to casting a variety of diverse faces. Having a sweeping, epic romance between two black leads in a science-fiction show is still rare enough that having the love scenes between Mackie and Goldberry feels like a win.

If the show continues, however, I'll be glad for Tak to leave his past further in the distance, and hopefully for a change of scenery. While I don't mind the proliferation of dank bars and prison cells, "Altered Carbon" is looking a little too much like every other sci-fi show out there these days, especially next to the "Star Trek" revival shows and "The Expanse." However, I'll gladly deliver kudos to the excellent fight and gun battle sequences, and a showstopper of a deus ex machina. When the show wants to deliver its wow moments, it definitely still knows how. Here's hoping that Netflix decides to bring this one back sooner rather than later.

---

Huzzah for "The Great"

"The Great," covering the rise to power of Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia, is pointedly self-described as "an occasionally true story." In fact, there's not much of "The Great" that resembles actual history except the broadest outlines. The series starts with Catherine (Elle Fanning) arriving at the Russian court after growing up an impoverished German noble, full of progressive ideals and dreams of bettering Russia. These dreams are quickly dashed when she meets her new husband, Peter III (Nicholas Hoult), a childish, narcissist reprobate with little regard for his subjects. Catherine tries her best to settle into court life, but is increasingly appalled at Peter's poor leadership and casual abuse of power. After considering her options, she decides to work toward a coup to take power for herself.

Written by Tony McNamara, who also wrote "The Favourite," "The Great" is played as the blackest black comedy. Peter is constantly abusing people, is often totally oblivious to his incompetence, and devotes most of his energies to having the best time possible. He has sex with anyone he wants, including his best friend Grigor's (Gwilym Lee) very willing wife Georgina (Charity Wakefiend). Catherine's early attempts at reform tend to go terribly awry, and end up further subjugating people or causing unintended tragedy. There's a lot of sex and bawdiness in the series, but the show draws the line at actual nudity. Likewise, while "The Great" covers similar thematic ground as "The Favourite," with its focus on the vulgar excesses and absurd privilege of the ruling class, its narrative is more traditional. Catherine never stops being morally forthright, and we already know that she wins in the end.

On the other hand, this Catherine is clearly invented. The real Catherine the Great didn't spearhead the coup of Peter III, and was actually less of a progressive and a reformer than her husband. Likewise, nearly all the other characters and relationships in the show are totally made up. The only supporting figures based on actual people are Peter's Aunt Elizabeth (Belinda Bromilow) and Catherine's first major ally, Count Orlo (Sacha Dhawan), and they're portrayed as a wacky eccentric and a nervous bureaucrat respectively. Other characters include Catherine's sarcastic maid Marial (Phoebe Fox), her assigned lover Leo (Sebastian de Souza), and members of Peter's inner circle, the Archbishop (Adam Godley) and General Velementov (Douglas Hodge).

However, the point of the show is its inaccuracy. There's colorblind casting, so you have black and South-Asian Russian nobles in the mix, and everyone speaks with British accents. There are major honking anachronisms in just about every episode. "The Great" is not interested in Catherine the Great's life as it really was, but as a jumping off point for a big, juicy allegory about an inept government heading a country mired in corruption. It takes more inspiration from the Trump administration and episodes of "Veep" than the Russian court. However, because the series is so frank in showing Peter's rampant vices and celebration of his own ignorance, it feels more honest and clear-eyed about the politics of tyranny than a traditional piece of historical fiction. And it's certainly funnier.

This could have all fallen apart if the cast weren't up to snuff, but fortunately the assembled comic talents all bring their A game. Elle Fanning's Catherine is mostly the voice of reason and straight woman to the madness going on at court, but she's a very compelling and sympathetic character, with her own considerable faults. Her monologue about her expectations for her wedding night is fantastic stuff. However, the clear MVP of the series is Nicholas Hoult, whose Peter III is essentially an oblivious frat boy who has been handed all the power, and it's made him a monster. Still, he's frequently so genial and weirdly innocent in his monstrosity that he's kinda likeable in spite of it. Surely, he's not totally irredeemable, right?

The show's writing initially seems a little shaky on filling ten episodes, and there are slower stretches as Catherine vacillates between whether she should kill Peter or better him. Fortunately, there's some smart use of the ensemble, and many of the subplots yield good things. Even the romance that develops between Catherine and Leo, while very predictable, has some good twists and turns. McNamara is very good at turning very stressful situations into very absurd ones, and the dialogue is full of great zingers. One of the best episodes involves Peter and Catherine meeting the Swedish royals, who are essentially blonder doubles of themselves, and Peter gets a great rant about the Russian approach to warfare.

My one major complaint with "The Great" is that it's currently being billed as a miniseries, but functions better as the first season of an ongoing series. The finale, in particular, is a cliffhanger that leaves far too many questions unanswered, whether you know the relevant history or not.

---

The Posts I Didn't Write Today, 2020 Edition

There are a handful of recent entertainment and media items in the news that I've been toying with writing up posts for, but don't have enough to say about them to actually fill up more than a paragraph or two.  On the other hand, these are major stories that are going to have long-lasting implications, and I feel strongly that I really should put down something about them on this blog at this point in time.  So, cue the brief takes on three topics below, hopefully to be expanded on later. 

 

Paramount Consent Decrees -  Last week, a New York federal judge granted a motion by the U.S. Department of Justice to end the Paramount Consent Decrees, a set of court-established rules that were put in place after the 1948 United States v. Paramount Pictures antitrust case to end the vertical integration of film exhibition.  What this means in practical terms is that after seven decades, the major film studios are allowed to directly own movie theaters again and negotiate licensing films via "block booking" instead of individually.  The potential impact on film exhibition and theater owners is huge, since it's a struggling industry that's seen a  lot of clashes over the past few years between what the studios want - shorter exclusivity windows, bigger cuts of ticket sales - and what the theaters want.  

There has been a lot of speculation about a major studio will buy a major theater chain, that smaller theaters will be driven out of business, and that we'll see further consolidation of the industry due to the deregulatory action.  With Corona already hitting the industry hard, the decision will make it easier for a big player like Amazon to swoop in and acquire a lot of screens for cheap.  There's also the worry that the studios will go back to limiting the distribution of their films to the specific theaters that they own - and considering some of the draconian business Disney has gotten up to lately, it's pretty likely.    On the other hand, it's no longer 1948 and the exhibition business has changed significantly.  The new ruling pointed out that movie theaters were now competing with all manner of other media platforms, including streaming services and television, and removing some of the restrictions might be beneficial to help them stay open.   It's much too early to say for sure, but this is something that all movie lovers should be keeping an eye on.  

Cancelling Ellen - Now, let's shift gears over to daytime television.  I've never been a regular viewer of the "Ellen" program, but I do remember the early days when Ellen DeGeneres managed to fill the void left by the departure of Oprah Winfrey with a little  positivity, a little dancing, and a lot of celebrity fluff.  "Ellen" has now been on the air for seventeen years, and appears to be the latest battleground of the #Metoo movement.  Prompted by a bitter dispute over coronavirus shutdown pay, staffers have alleged that the show is a toxic workplace, completely counter to the "be kind" philosophy espoused by the host.  There have been claims of sexual misconduct, racism, bias, and hostility.  Though none of the more serious claims are tied to DeGeneres personally, many stories about her being cold, rude, and irresponsible are now in circulation.  Various celebrities have taken sides, both for and against.  

There are a lot of lenses you can look at this story through.  Ellen DeGeneres is viewed as something of a role model for being one of the most prominent and successful lesbian performers in the entertainment industry.  How much responsibility should she have for the actions of her producers and other bad actors?  Should people be holding her to a higher standard?  Is she allowed to be "cold" in person despite her effervescent stage persona?  Is this cancel culture run amok?  Is this a case of a hypocrite being rightfully called out?  Or have the times just changed, and another former trailblazer has gotten complacent and failed to change with them?  At the time of writing, "Ellen" ratings have taken a dive, but there's no indication that the show will go off the air anytime soon.       

Streamers Status Quo - There has been an explosion of new streaming services making their debuts in the last few months, the most prominent being HBO Max, Quibi, and Peacock.  With Apple TV+ and Disney+ not having been launched all that long ago, and many, many other smaller services all offering free trials - what the heck is Topic? - we are now fully in the streaming age.  A flood of new content has come with it, even with coronavirus having caused many delays and setbacks.  These new platforms have all taken a slightly different approach from each other, to varying degrees of success.     

How are the newbies doing?  So far, there's one clear loser: Quibi.  The service features short form content to be consumed by people on the go, like commuters or people stuck in lines.  So, it's essentially Youtube with flashier content.  People have not been biting.  Apple TV+  is sticking to its strategy of quality over quantity, with a small handful of hits and a subscriber base mostly comprised of people who get Apple TV+ subscriptions free with new Apple devices.  Peacock is following the Hulu model of replicating free TV with commercials, with a smaller commercial-free pay service tier.  It's doing okay, despite the cancellation of the Olympics which were supposed to be the big draw over the summer.  HBO Max, which I continue to keep confusing with HBO Now, is harder to parse, because it's trying to roll one subscriber base into another, and is still hammering out distribution deals with Roku and Amazon, but AT&T is doggedly moving forward with expansion plans.  Disney+ is the big winner, with over 50 million subscribers, and is on the hustle for more new content to keep them all happy.  

---