Mount Hood

True crime

Actor Rhoyle Ivy King’s online contribution to filming Netflix’s dramatized series on serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. | Photo from @rhoyleivyking on Instagram

Oct 22 2025 | Hannah Field | Editor-in-Chief

Content warning: this article discusses murder and violence

 

Crime has always been a fascinating topic for many. With fictional television shows like “Criminal Minds” and “Law & Order,” such violent conversation topics have proven to make for an equally entertaining and profitable form of media and content — but what takes it a step further is the true crime industry.

The entertainment industry is no stranger to documentaries. “Dateline” has been airing since 1992, with its predecessor “48 Hours” beginning in 1988. True crime documentaries have had an uptick in recent years, milking notable names for content through big platforms like Netflix. Some examples of these include “Murdaugh Murders: A Southern Scandal,” “Tiger King,” “Monster” about Jeffrey Dahmer being arguably the beginning controversy for true crime dramatized recreations in television, “American Murder: Gabby Petito,” “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story” and others. Through Hulu, “Hunting JonBenét’s Killer: The Untold Story” explores one of the world’s most perplexing and haunting cases.

Many such platform-produced shows seem to have split goals, torn between celebrating a life lost too soon and forming a lucrative piece of content that will dominate the streaming sphere and social media timelines. “Monster” from Netflix was criticized by the masses following its immensely popular release in 2022 due to its insensitive portrayal of the victims of infamous killer Jeffrey Dahmer. The show took deeper angles into Dahmer’s life, offering a nearly sympathetic angle at times according to some. The main point brought up against the show is how none of the victims’ families consented to the release, and expressed extreme discomfort and disappointment. Some have campaigned that the show redirected toward the victims in the second half, signifying its decency and awareness of the sensitivity required to navigate such a story. Personally, I never delved into “Monster” — despite being a true crime fan, which we’ll get into — because I heard of its disrespectful narrative and didn’t feel I was missing out.

Gabby Petito’s story was handled with more care, probably due to its recency and the abuse she suffered. The story was an outrage on social media following Petito’s disappearance in 2021. Eventually, her body was found near the Grand Teton National Park, and her cause of death was ruled a homicide, confirmed to be by her boyfriend, Brian Laundrie. The case sparked such intense news coverage that it’s no surprise Netflix swooped in, going A-Z with the series and how it was solved. However, the listed description remains somewhat callous, stating, “What happened in the final days of Gabby Petito’s life? In this gripping true-crime series, her loved ones reveal the untold story of her tragic murder” — which is not the most conscientious approach.

The streaming giant Peacock took true crime to another level by publishing alleged murderer Casey Anthony’s documentary — an extremely controversial move that has divided watchers. Casey Anthony’s daughter, Caylee, was nearly four years old in 2008 when her remains were found near the Anthony family residence after she was reported missing by her grandmother Cindy Anthony.

The state of Florida sought the death penalty against Casey Anthony, believing her to be the culprit in Caylee’s homicide. In 2011, a jury found her not guilty of murder, but rather four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to the police. Fast forward to 2022, Casey released her documentary, “Casey Anthony: Where the Truth Lies,” flipping the script in an exclusive three-part series with Peacock.

Why Peacock would publicize Casey’s story in her defense is beyond me, especially considering the public criticism she’s encountered year after year ever since her daughter’s death. The true crime community has nailed Casey for nearly a decade for lying about her daughter, being caught partying after her daughter was reported missing and then blaming her family for what happened to Caylee, acquitting herself of all personal responsibility. Then again, to publish an alleged murderer’s tall tale would garner views on views — so there’s Peacock’s motive, or so I presume.

There’s this long-running fascination between people and murder. In my household, my mom used to play “NCIS” on all three televisions across the house so she wouldn’t miss a single minute, no matter where she was. My dad owned all the seasons of “Dexter” on DVD and fell asleep to them routinely. It’s not much of a surprise that I’ve found my way to true crime, although in a different medium: true crime podcasts.

According to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, people are drawn to exploring true crime because of curiosity. The motives of a murderer are beyond understandable, but simultaneously being able to solve, or witness the solving, of a tragic case provides some sort of rush. Newspapers initially sensationalized crime before passing the torch to visual content, like Netflix documentaries or YouTube podcasts.

Others may turn to true crime to witness justice’s golden hammer come down on those who deserve it, playing into what viewers want to see. Across the board, it’s entertainment, escapism and storytelling, a great trap to get watchers all the way through. Scientifically, it’s been compared to haunted houses and roller coasters — facing a fictional danger in some form or another.

But there are undoubtedly present ethical dilemmas in the true crime world. Controversial, money-grabbing attempts at documentaries and re-enactments stir up a long-running conversation about morality that has no solution. Does it make someone a bad person to find “Monster” entertaining, but still empathize with the victims and their families? Is the public forum of modern entertainment off limits for sensitive real-life topics? Where do we draw the line? Who decides where that line even is?

There is a very real conversation to be had about our society’s decreasing sensitivity to such violent acts and topics, and another about whether we’re forcing individuals to relive their trauma through media productions.

Today, there is no answer; no person to distinguish what’s right and wrong. The culprits we can assuredly blame include corporate greed — looking at streaming services, and most notably to me, Peacock — and cash-grabbing techniques to acquire views over anything else.

So, I don’t tend to watch a lot of produced documentaries — I do indulge in true crime podcasts. A term I hear a lot is “active true crime consumer,” which signifies an understanding that the content being viewed is sensitive and has a real-life impact. YouTuber and podcaster Kendall Rae was where I first heard the term, and I’ve always enjoyed her personal approach, honoring victims and discussing the path to justice.

“Murder With My Husband” is another podcast that I listen to rather routinely. It features married couple Payton and Garrett Moreland as she recites a true-crime script, following the thrilling twists and turns of a tragic tale, while respecting and honoring the life or lives that were taken. An interesting aspect of the podcast is Garrett Moreland’s consistent hatred for the true crime genre, and his shocked reactions as he, alongside us, discovers the truth of the stories. Unnecessary fun fact: he’s opening a bagel shop and I’m very intrigued by it.

YouTuber Wendigoon centers on more fantasy or dark horror, but occasionally looks into true crime, and when he does, it’s always good. Another YouTuber, BOZE vs. the WORLD, has a series on female killers — it’s a little too produced for my liking, but I’m a big fan of her other content and so I occasionally indulge.

Kendall Rae also has a podcast with her husband called “Mile Higher,” doing the same as her personal channel by exploring true crime cases and occasionally other topics.

The point is: if true crime is on TV, be aware of its impact. Engage by being an active true crime consumer and contribute faithfully. Think critically and with empathy, but it’s not necessary to feel shame — or shame others — for indulging in true crime.

 

Contact the author at howleditorinchief@mail.wou.edu

Baby, that’s show biz

The cover for Taylor Swift’s newest studio album, “The Life of a Showgirl.” | Photo from @taylorswift on Instagram

Oct 8 2025 | Jaylin Emond-Hardin | Entertainment Editor

If there’s one thing singer-songwriter Taylor Swift is known for, it’s the Easter eggs surrounding her work. The lead-up to the release of her 12th studio album, “The Life of a Showgirl,” was no different. 

On Aug. 11, 2025, the Instagram account @taylornation — run by Swift’s management team — posted a series of photos captioned “Thinking about when she said ‘see you next era….’” with the fire heart emoji. Each photo in the carousel featured an orange outfit Swift wore during the sets of her Eras Tour. That same day, a timer appeared on Swift’s official website, counting down to 12:12 a.m. Eastern time. 

When the timer ended, a sneak peek of Swift on the Aug. 13 episode of the “New Heights” podcast — hosted by her partner, Travis Kelce, and his brother, Jason Kelce — announced that she would be releasing a new album titled “The Life of a Showgirl.” In this sneak peek, however, Swift had blurred the cover to keep suspense for the podcast’s release. 

When the “New Heights” episode aired, it broke the record for most concurrent viewers on YouTube, with 1.3 million viewers tuning into the livestream. Swift’s Spotify also created a playlist titled “And, baby, that’s show business for you,” with songs from “reputation,” “Red” and “1989” highlighting the sound the album would take. 

Alternate covers were posted to @taylornation the same day, and highlighted the showgirl aesthetic that the album was meant to take, complete with feathers, oversized jewels, fishnet stockings and kitten heels. The 12-song track list was announced the following day, Aug. 14. 

When the album was released Oct. 3, it immediately broke records. In just the first 11 hours of its release, “The Life of a Showgirl” was streamed on Spotify by 1.2 million users, becoming the most-streamed album in a single day in 2025. Track one, “The Fate of Ophelia,” is the album’s single and currently sits as the most-streamed song. 

Each song carries its own unique sound, which was created with the help of producers Max Martin and Shellback — who have previously collaborated with Swift on albums “Red,” “1989” and “reputation.” The songs that the duo produced from these albums were included on the “And, baby, that’s show business” playlist on Swift’s Spotify. 

Now that the album has made its dazzling debut, it’s time to take a closer look at the songs that make “The Life of a Showgirl” one of Swift’s most ambitious eras yet.

“The Fate of Ophelia” — The album’s single is the first song that clearly alludes to her relationship with Travis Kelce. Using imagery relating to Ophelia from William Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet,” the synth beat evokes a dreamlike feel while Swift sings of being saved from the fate of Ophelia. In Shakespeare’s play, Ophelia famously went mad after the death of her father, Polonius, and being rejected by Hamlet, whom she loved deeply. The imagery in the song suggests that Kelce saved Swift from meeting the same fate.

“Elizabeth Taylor” — This isn’t the first time Swift has referenced actress Elizabeth Taylor in her work. In the music video for her 2014 hit “Wildest Dreams,” Swift dresses as the Hollywood icon and falls in love with her co-star on set, just like Elizabeth Taylor and her ex-husband Richard Burton did on set for the 1963 film “Cleopatra.” The song talks about the downsides of fame, with lyrics that could apply to Swift or Elizabeth Taylor.

“Opalite” — Most Swifties know that Swift’s favorite gemstone is an opal, which means the fact that Kelce’s birthstone is an opal is even sweeter. “(An opalite) is a man-made opal and happiness can also be man-made,” Swift said during an interview with Capital FM Breakfast. “That’s what the song is about. The juxtaposition of those two.” Swift speaks of this “man-made happiness” in previous relationships for both her and Kelce, but suggests that now that they are together, “the sky is opalite.”

“Father Figure” — Fans are convinced that “Father Figure” is about Scooter Braun, Swift’s former manager. After Braun sold the rights to Swift’s masters without her permission, a years-long battle to reclaim them ensued. The song tells the story from the perspective of the father figure, and suggests betrayal and a lack of loyalty. 

“Eldest Daughter” — Swift has referenced marriage multiple times in previous albums, with track five following the trend. The line “when I said I don’t believe in marriage, that was a lie,” seemingly alludes to Kelce and their recent engagement. She also criticizes the apathy of internet culture, and “Eldest Daughter” is the most vulnerable track on the album.

“Ruin the Friendship” — While most assumed that track six would address Swift’s apparent feud with actress Blake Lively, it actually speaks of a high school friend who passed. Her friend Abigail, who is referenced in “Fifteen” from Swift’s 2008 album “Fearless,” does receive a mention.

“Actually Romantic” — While the title suggests romance, the lyrics are actually far from romantic. Many interpret this track as a response to singer Charli XCX’s track “Sympathy is a Knife,” as well as addressing the brief and unconfirmed fling Swift had with The 1975 frontman Matty Healy. Charli XCX is married to George Daniel, who is currently the drummer for The 1975. 

“Wi$h Li$t” — Track eight might have dollar signs in the name; however, the song rejects material culture and luxury goods. Instead, Swift speaks of what she really wants: Kelce, “a couple of kids” and to just settle down.

“Wood” — Another song about Kelce, this track is for sure the sexiest on “The Life of a Showgirl.” The steamy lyrics reference Swift’s intimate relationship with Kelce, going so far as to allude to his manhood. 

“CANCELLED!” — While most thought “Ruin the Friendship” would be about Blake Lively, it is in fact track 10 that addresses their relationship. The track defends multiple members of Swift’s friend group who have been under fire at some point — without actually naming them. Some lyrics have allusions to Lively, while others seem to defend Brittany Mahomes, wife of Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes. 

“Honey” — The fifth and final song on the album about Kelce, “Honey” talks about how pet names were always used passive-aggressively until their relationship began. The song is sugary and sweet, giving more bubblegum pop vibes.

“The Life of a Showgirl” — Featuring Sabrina Carpenter, the album’s titular song talks about the ups and downs of life as a celebrity. This is the first time Carpenter and Swift have collaborated on a song, even though Carpenter opened for the Eras Tour. “The Life of a Showgirl” focuses heavily on meeting one’s idols and being warned about following in their footsteps, but still doing it anyways.

“The Life of a Showgirl” is now streaming on Spotify and Apple Music. 
Contact the author at howlentertainment@wou.edu

Us and generative AI

An AI-generated photo of glass pancakes for “ASMR.” | Photo from @theaisatisfying on Instagram

Oct. 15, 2025 |  Jaylin Emond-Hardin | Entertainment Editor

Artificial intelligence, or AI, has become more and more prevalent as technology advances. What was once a science fiction storyline is now our reality; AI chatbots, videos and photos are all too common now.

Most of Generation Z and millennials have watched AI grow with them. Siri first launched with the iPhone 4S in 2011, while Alexa followed three years later with the introduction of the Amazon Echo. These AI assistants have grown with us from childhood to adulthood on our phones, tablets and computers. 

When it comes to generative AI, most are now approaching the subject with the utmost caution and hesitancy. After all, it has been proven time and again that AI systems often steal art created by real people to “train” their models. 

I mean, it was only April when Studio Ghibli founder and animator Hayao Miyazaki begged fans of his movies not to use the technology to recreate their photos in his movies’ style. 

Miyazaki described AI technologies as “utterly disgusting” and “an insult to life itself” before stating he would “never wish to incorporate this technology into (his) work at all.” Unfortunately, this didn’t stop users from “Ghiblifying” their photos on OpenAI’s platform ChatGPT, with thousands of accounts and users sharing these images on social media — even @WhiteHouse on X, formerly known as Twitter, shared “Ghiblified” images. 

The exploitation of artists isn’t the only issue posed by AI. Data centers across the world use billions of gallons of water to cool the servers. 2022 saw major tech companies use 580 billion gallons of water for their AI operations, while in 2024, a Google center in Iowa consumed 1 billion gallons alone. When a user interacts with any AI system, be it Google Gemini, ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot, it uses one-tenth of a gallon or 12.8 fluid ounces of water — almost a full cup. 

While most adults can actively choose whether or not to consume AI-generated content or to interact with the models, it’s much more difficult to teach children how to distinguish between what is and isn’t AI-generated. 

I don’t think I ever fully understood how AI was being aimed at children until I began student teaching. My class was working on an “I Am” poem where they described who they were before choosing images that represented them. 

The end result? So many students found AI-generated photos that they liked for their project. 

For one, it’s not their fault. The images they used were very clearly marketed to children — magical cats, animals playing sports, even some that related to the wildly popular Netflix movie “KPop Demon Hunters.”

At our weekly assembly time, it became much more evident how AI was being marketed towards children. For a reminder on how to behave in line in the hall, a parody of “Golden” from “KPop Demon Hunters” was shown — once again, the popularity of the movie is capitalized upon by AI, complete with AI-generated images, animation and singing. 

This video has already amassed 463,000 views in just one month of being posted to YouTube, with educators and students alike sharing and watching to learn about the basics of being in line. 

It doesn’t stop at “KPop Demon Hunters,” however. A good majority of YouTube Shorts meant for children feature AI.

When scrolling through YouTube Shorts, I found that a majority of the videos that were created using generative AI had the hashtags “YouTube Kids” and “kids animation.” These videos typically feature anthropomorphic cats and have one of three subjects: cheating, revenge or pregnancy. Sometimes all three are featured in one video. 

Pairing this normalization of AI in children’s spaces with generated ASMR — glass fruit spreading, gemstone cutting and slime videos — being highly popular on apps like TikTok and Instagram creates a can of worms that nobody is ready to open. 

However, we’re not here to talk about the consequences of AI. We’re here to talk about what we can actively do to slow the usage and consumption of AI. 

Use a critical eye — One of the biggest pieces of advice I could give is to look at suspicious content with a critical eye. Count the number of fingers on hands and look at the way that the eyes look. Even as AI improves, it cannot perfect the way our hands and eyes look, proving that those are what truly make us human. If those aren’t a dead giveaway, watch the movements. They are often too smooth or too robotic. Text is another dead giveaway — AI models, no matter how sophisticated, can never get letters or logos quite right. 

Don’t give the account the views they want — Most accounts that post AI-generated photos or videos want engagement, which is the most obvious thing I think I have ever said. However, it’s the truth. These accounts want people to watch their videos. The more views and engagement they get, the more they get to say, “Look, the people want this. We should make more of this.” It encourages the models’ creators as well because they see the engagement that these videos receive and work to make their models more widespread and normalized. My best advice when one sees these videos is to swipe away or click “not interested.” This will put less AI-generated content on one’s feed, thus lessening the views these accounts receive. 

Monitor what children are consuming — With how common AI-generated media is in children’s spheres, it’s best to pay attention to what children are consuming, as it is with all content they interact with. Have a conversation with children about AI-generated content in ways that are appropriate. Kids are smart and they’ll understand what’s going on. I know I’ve had wonderful conversations with my students about AI and its consequences — granted, they are fourth and fifth graders, but still, talking with children in an age-appropriate way about the dangers of AI is better than not educating them at all. 

Teach the older generations to recognize AI-generated content — Generation X and baby boomers are two populations that are also susceptible to AI-generated content. Facebook is rife with AI-generated photos and videos, and the generations that weren’t raised on this kind of technology have a harder time telling reality from AI. Along with educating younger generations about AI and its dangers, it’s also important to help the older generations — our parents and grandparents — understand how to recognize when something isn’t real. Show them how to identify an AI-generated video. Talk to them about the consequences. 

It doesn’t seem like AI generation models are going away. In recent research, Forbes has found that AI servers and prevalence have multiplied 14 times since 2000. While some AI is beneficial — Siri and Alexa, especially — the wave of generative AI has become increasingly detrimental to both the environment and the social media landscape. 

As the generation currently leading the workplace and social media sphere in the digital age as influencers, educators and artists, it’s increasingly important that we slow the wave of generative AI. We can do this by educating ourselves and other generations and not giving the AI models what they want: our attention, our art and our money.

 

Contact the author at howlentertainment@wou.edu

Is it Worth the Watch?: “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” Review

sonypictures.com

Sam Dunaway | News Editor

If you’re anything like me, ‘90s movies played a major role in your childhood entertainment. The 1995 classic “Jumanji” was no exception. Upon the announcement of a sequel, I’ll admit that I was a bit skeptical. But as long as you’re not looking for a thought-provoking work of art, “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” is worth the watch.

The film follows four teenagers who who find themselves sucked into the game of Jumanji — but unlike the original board game, Jumanji now takes the form of a video game. Falling deep in a mysterious jungle, they must finish the game in order to leave. There’s just one difference – the four teens are in the form of their video game characters, portrayed by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan and Jack Black.

The humor and talent of the actors is really what makes this movie enjoyable. With Kevin Hart’s fiesty and loud personality and Jack Black’s portrayal of a snobby popular girl, you almost forget about the lack of intriguing dialogue and presence of cheesy one-liners.

The movie would definitely prove disappointing if you’re feeling nostalgic and longing for the world of Jumanji. Apart from one scene with the actual board game and the classic, suspenseful thumping, the sequel just doesn’t measure up to the original. “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” focused on comedy and the balance between appealing to adults and children alike. It lacked character development and was often cliché. But thankfully, the comedic genius of the actors overshadowed the lack of any real emotional connection with the characters.

If you’re looking to dive into the world of Jumanji, you’re better off with the 1995 original and the 1981 illustration book by Chris Van Allsburg. But I would suggest this movie to anyone looking for a fresh, amusing and humorous adventure.

Contact the author at journalnews@wou.edu

Life-Changing Lessons from the World of Harry Potter

Written by: Liberty Miller | Lifestyle Editor

I, alongside many others, spent my childhood looking through the lenses of the main characters in the novels I read. Having pored over the “Harry Potter” series since third grade, I got to experience a large portion of my developmental years from the perspective of the Chosen One, Harry Potter. 

“Harry Potter” is a distinct pop culture personality, who openly defies the government, fights prejudice and is fiercely loyal to his friends. J.K. Rowling also creates a wonderfully dimensional character profile for everyone in the book — rather than making the characters one-dimensionally morally sound or evil, she creates multifaceted characters that make mistakes, have moral gray areas, apologize and evolve as people. 

“Harry Potter” makes a relatable variety of mistakes throughout the series, and while being an astute and stubborn personality, also admits when he’s wrong and works to make things right. 

Coming from an unsavory background as the humble punching bag of the Dursley family, Harry Potter had the beginnings befitting of a supervillain. Facing daily roadblocks and abuse with no connections or friends, Harry became self-reliant and resentful of his life. 

He eventually gained status as a wizard and escaped his life with the Dursleys to attend Hogwarts, a similar path to Voldemort’s. However, Harry chose to defend those less fortunate and befriend characters like Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, who were not the most popular or influential characters but were genuine friends. 

He rejected the Sorting Hat’s offer to place him in Slytherin despite being offered power and influence. Throughout the series, he makes conscious decisions to defend and protect people against prejudice and hatred and recognizes his faults concerning his impulsiveness and how his actions affect others. 

Harry is a prime example of having a choice to be a good person or to pursue power and influence without regarding others, and he is a great role model for young readers in terms of being authentic to oneself and fighting for what one believes in. 

J.K. Rowling also tackles some tough subjects for young readers such as bullying, grief, unfair circumstances, jealousy between friends, family dynamics and the uncomfortable feeling of growing up. While most readers cannot relate to having to face a faceless, bald and red-eyed supervillain with murderous tendencies, there are many other subjects that coming-of-age readers can relate to or struggle with. What “Harry Potter” teaches readers is, in essence, to create strong dependable friendships, use power and influence to do good things and reject social prejudice and administrative or governmental systems that work against the people. Most importantly, the series reminds readers to stay true to themselves and what they believe in. 

Contact the author at howllifestyle@wou.edu

The Revival of Percy Jackson and the Olympians

Written by: Claire Phillips | Entertainment Editor

History was made on June 28, 2005, when Rick Riordan first published “The Lightning Thief.” In the last year, the author of “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” has released two new books belonging to the original beloved book series. Over the last 18 years, the series has grown to be 17 books long in addition to two trilogies that take place in the same universe.

To date, the “Percy Jackson” series has been adapted into two movies and a television series that is scheduled to air on Disney+ on Dec. 20. The series stars actors Walker Scobell as Jackson, Leah Sava Jeffries as Annabeth Chase and Aryan Simhadri as Grover Underwood. Trailers for the show depict the trio embarking on epic adventures, accurately mirroring the first book in the series.

Fans have ultimately been more receptive to the casting of the show than the original two movies, though the characters don’t exactly match their book descriptions. Lovers of the book series were disappointed by previous adaptations of the book series to see plot points erased and the characters inappropriately cast in the movies. 

As Riordan continued to expand his universe, he added more diversity to his book by including POC, LGBTQ+ and disabled characters. “Percy Jackson” fans are excited to see this diversity has carried over into the series as well.

Since the original “Percy Jackson” pentalogy was released in the 2000s, Rick Riordan has continued to write bestselling novels. “The Heroes of Olympus” continued the “Percy Jackson” story with a new cast of characters in the 2010s, and “The Trials of Apollo” took the point of view of one of the Olympians the previous series discussed. “Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard” and “The Kane Chronicles” followed Norse and Egyptian mythology, and were also adored by loyal Riordan fans, who dubbed their favorite author Uncle Rick.

Though Rick Riordan has claimed he is finished writing books in the “Percy Jackson” series, he released two new additions in 2023 — “The Chalice of the Gods” and “The Sun and the Star”. “The Chalice of the Gods” follows Percy as he navigates his senior year of high school. “The Sun and the Star,” co-written with Mark Oshiro, is the treacherous tale of demigods Nico di Angelo and Will Solace as they venture into the underworld.

“Percy Jackson” has continued to thrive due to its healthy mix of nostalgia, a connected fanbase and incredible writing throughout the years. Fans are expecting a bright future for both the books and the show. 

Contact the author at howlentertainment@wou.edu

Mad Max: Fury Road – A Cinematic Masterpiece Revisited

By Nathaniel Dunaway
 Entertainment Editor

In 1979, Australian filmmaker George Miller released his feature-film debut: a dystopian action thriller entitled “Mad Max.” The film starred Mel Gibson as Max, a role that would launch the then 23-year-old actor into stardom.

Inspired by the 1970’s oil crisis, in which oil prices skyrocketed, affecting millions of Australians in particular, “Mad Max” (and its immediate sequels “The Road Warrior” and “Beyond Thunderdome,”) follows Max, a lawman, and his travels through a post-apocalyptic desert wasteland, where he encounters vicious motorcycle gangs, mutants, vengeance and driving. Lots and lots of driving.

Miller had always planned a fourth film in the franchise, but the project remained in development hell for nearly 30 years. When it finally became a reality with the release of “Mad Max: Fury Road,” this month, the response from fans and critics alike was virtually unanimous: it was worth the wait.

“Fury Road,” essentially a reboot of the series rather than a strict continuation, stars Tom Hardy (“Bronson”) and Charlize Theron (“Monster”) as Max Rockatansky and Imperator Furiosa, respectively.

The film begins with Furiosa, a badass, one-armed raider, leading a convoy of war rigs from the Citadel — a colony led by the film’s antagonist, Immortan Joe — to Gas Town, a city with a monopoly grip on gasoline. Halfway to her destination, however, she veers off-road, thus setting the insane events of this insane film in motion.

As it turns out, Furiosa is actually smuggling Immortan Joe’s Five Wives (the women he keeps as “breeders”) to safety. When the masked, deformed, and insane Joe realizes this, he leads a war party after Furiosa to retrieve his wives.

If that description of the film sounds somewhat Mad Max-less, that’s because it is, for the first act at least. Early on, Max is captured and serves as the “blood-bag” (an unwilling blood donor) to Nux, a Citadel raider played by Nicholas Hoult (“Warm Bodies”). Only after the first half-hour does Max cease being a passive character to whom things simply happen, and becomes the driving force of the film, when he decides to aid in the rescue of Immortan Joe’s Five Wives.

Still, Charlize Theron’s Furiosa is constantly at odds with Tom Hardy’s Max for the title of “Fury Road’s” true action hero. Max’s name may be in the title, but it’s Furiosa’s mission that the audience invests in — first when she seeks to save the Five Wives, and later, when she seeks revenge on Immortan Joe, played terrifyingly by “Mad Max” alum Hugh Keays-Byrne. Regardless, Furiosa will still inevitably go down as one of the great action characters of all-time.

“Fury Road” is filled to the brim with explosions, gunfire, fights, frenzy, and fun. It’s an action film in the purist sense, in which the action serves as perfectly-executed exposition in the telling of a great story. It’s never action for action’s sake, never mindless or aimless.

The title of “action film” has a sour connotation to some, suggesting a men’s only club of overwrought violence and one-liners, but “Fury Road” is about as far from Steven Seagal as you can get, mainly due to Imperator Furiosa, the epitome of the strong female hero.

She’s a scarred, battle-hardened fighter with no time for in-depth introspection or (and thank God/George Miller for this) a love-interest. But the feminist themes don’t stop there, with the story of the Five Wives’ escape from the clutches of Immortan Joe serving as an allegory of sorts for the reproductive rights of women.

Action doesn’t always mean flame-spewing electric guitars and hand-grenade spears. It also means what the characters do, and in this film, what they do and what decisions they make are paramount. “Fury Road” takes place over a frenzied three days of mayhem, leaving little breathing room and even less room for needless character arcs. What the characters do inform who they are, nothing more, nothing less.

In the hands of a lesser filmmaker, the idea of a two-hour long film encompassing what is essentially a single car chase would come off as overdone and gimmicky, but in George Miller’s hands, it’s truly a sight to behold.

So go out and behold it, as soon as you can. You’ll be glad you did.

4 paws out of 4.

Rick and Morty Season 7: New Voices, Same Chaos

Written by: Sophie Taylor | Designer

Content warning: mentions of domestic violence

Rick and Morty. Since its initial release in 2013, averaging 1.52 million viewers per episode,  it is a cartoon loved by many. Its latest season, season seven, has created a lot of buzz since people started realizing that in this upcoming season, Rick and Morty would be voiced by different people. The show was created by Dan Harmon and Justin Roiland and Roiland has voiced both Rick and Morty for the past six seasons. 

In May 2020, Roiland was charged with two felony counts, one for domestic battery and one for false imprisonment, from an incident with a woman he was dating. After these charges, Roiland was dropped from Rick and Morty and other shows such as Solar Opposites. 

Now, with the man who voiced the two main characters in his show being fired, many are asking what happens next? As people began to find out Adult Swim and Hulu severed ties with him, they began to question who would replace him. Turns out, we wouldn’t have an answer until the seventh season aired Oct. 15 of this year. 

The search for the new voice actors took about six months, with thousands of applicants auditioning. Scott Marder, who helped Dan Harmon in the selection process, said that finding the right person to voice Rick took so long that they considered going global in their search. 

“No one sounded exactly like Rick. It was tricky,” he said in an interview with Lesley Goldberg at The Hollywood Reporter. 

It was also important to note that the voice actors were chosen so that fans couldn’t recognize the change in voices, unlike Roiland’s character, Korvo, who in the show was shot with a “voice fixing ray” altering his voice. 

After the voices were revealed, congratulations are due to Ian Cardoni, the new voice of Rick, and Harry Belden, the new voice of Morty. Fans have already started making comparisons between the old voices and the new ones; some have said they welcome the new takes on the characters, but others say that the “improvisational tone” that Justin Roiland brought to the characters just isn’t there anymore. 

Many fans are also upset that Sean Kelly, a voice actor who gained a lot of recognition for sounding exactly like Rick and Morty, was not offered the role of both Rick and Morty, similar to how Roiland played them both. Many comments on TikTok videos regarding the voice change are all about Kelly. Before the release of the new season, comments were begging for Kelly to be chosen. 

Even now, comments say Kelly was robbed and still deserves the part. As more episodes and seasons are released, fans will have to decide: is the show good enough to keep watching after such a big change, or is it not? 

Contact the author at howldesigner@wou.edu

Barefoot, blue-jean night

April 9, 2025

Written by: Jaylin Emond-Hardin | Entertainment Editor

“Barefoot Blue Jean Night” — Jake Owens

“I Had Some Help” — Post Malone and Morgan Wallen

“Wagon Wheel” — Darius Rucker

“Knee Deep” — Zac Brown Band

“Drunk On a Plane” — Dierks Bentley

“Red Solo Cup” — Toby Keith

“Cruise” — Florida Georgia Line

“Redneck Woman” — Gretchen Wilson

“We Were Us” — Keith Urban and Miranda Lambert

“Stuck Like Glue” — Sugarland

“Friends in Low Places” — Garth Brooks

“Gunpowder and Lead” — Miranda Lambert

“That’s My Kinda Night” — Luke Bryan

“Redneck Yacht Club” — Craig Morgan

“American Nights” — Zach Bryan

“Holy Smokes” — Bailey Zimmerman

“You Look Like You Love Me” — Ella Langley and Riley Green

“Bad Day to Be a Beer” — Drake Milligan

“It’s Five O’Clock Somewhere” — Alan Jackson and Jimmy Buffet

“Two Piña Coladas” — Garth Brooks

Contact the author at howlentertainment@wou.edu

The live-action love affair

April 9, 2025

Written by: Jaylin Emond-Hardin | Entertainment Editor

It seems most of what Disney has been doing these days is releasing live-action remakes, creating a phenomenon where every other film they churn out flops at the box office. So why is the studio so hit-or-miss with these remakes?

Well, for one, these films used to be a novelty. Every so often, Disney would remake one of their classic films, dedicating their time to create a film that honored the original film while also carving its own place in the studio’s catalog. They were never meant to be a one-to-one recreation, but rather an homage to what came before.

Live-action remakes are not a new thing, either. Most people associate the era of these movies with recent times, starting in the 2010s and continuing production today. After all, most adults today grew up with Tim Burton’s 2010 live-action “Alice in Wonderland” remake; however, the first Disney live-action remake was released in 1994, being a live-action remake of “The Jungle Book.” The next two came in 1996 and 2000, in “101 Dalmatians” and “102 Dalmatians.” Most reviews of these three films are split, but most people can point to them being cult classics and staples in their childhood. 

Of course, as more of these films are created and they become commonplace, they lose the camp and nostalgia they once had. Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” — and the box office bomb “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” which was based on “Fantasia” — created a domino effect of classic animated films being turned into live-action versions of themselves. 

Many of these remakes come from four of Disney’s seven eras of animation: the golden, silver, bronze and renaissance eras. Most of these films adjust their tale for modern audiences, removing racist and sexist subtext that many classic films tend to have, and Disney executives have agreed that some movies simply cannot be adapted due to their nature — “Pocahontas” and “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” are two that have been delayed indefinitely.

But, while writers, directors and producers have the right to make necessary changes, there are some that just don’t land with fans. Enter “Beauty and the Beast,” “Mulan” and “Cruella.”

While their original iterations are still widely popular, “Beauty and the Beast” and “Mulan” seemed to fail among audiences. Their subtle changes and casting choices left fans dissatisfied and upset that more thought from the original films wasn’t put into consideration.

“Cruella” wasn’t welcomed as a film, not because it was a live-action remake, but rather because it was a villain origin story for the villain of “101 Dalmatians.” I mean, the lady wants to make puppies into a fur coat. Why should anyone care about why she’s a villain? 

Well, the film had hoped to market off the success of “Maleficent” and “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil,” films that explored Maleficent’s backstory and were remakes of the silver-era movie “Sleeping Beauty.” But where these movies succeeded, “Cruella” failed. To reiterate what I said earlier — she quite literally wants to kill puppies. 

Of course, there’s a third reason these live-action remakes often flop: they try to translate talking animals into a film style that only works if executed flawlessly. So far, none of the five recent animal-focused films — “The Jungle Book,” “Dumbo,” “The Lion King,” “Lady and the Tramp” and “Mufasa: The Lion King” — have met this mark, something “Alvin and the Chipmunks” did in 2007, when computer-generated imagery was still developing. 

The controversies surrounding the newly released “Snow White” remake have only discouraged fans from enjoying these films. 

The first controversy arose when actor Rachel Zegler was cast in the titular role, with many stating that the connection between the character’s name and racial identity was crucial to the film — an attempt to justify racism towards Zegler. It was later explained in the film that Snow White’s name came from surviving a snowstorm, a callback to another iteration of the original tale. 

The second controversy arose when Peter Dinklage, a well-known actor with dwarfism, criticized the film and dismissed it as a backward story. In response to this, Disney stated that they would be taking a different approach to the film’s dwarfs, following this criticism and conversations with those part of the dwarfism community. The seven dwarfs in the film were created by CGI, a decision that has further isolated the dwarfism community from the film. 

Zegler’s criticism of the original 1937 film pushed away more viewers as well, especially following her statements at the 2022 D23 Expo.

“The original cartoon came out in 1937 and very evidently so. There’s a big focus on her love story with a guy who literally stalks her. Weird. Weird. So we didn’t do that this time. We have a different approach to what I’m sure a lot of people will assume is a love story just because we cast a guy in the movie, Andrew Burnap, great dude,” said Zegler. “But it’s really not about her love story at all, which is really, really wonderful. All of Andrew’s scenes could get cut, who knows? It’s Hollywood, baby.”

The most current controversy to arise from this project comes from the political views of the actors themselves. Zegler is a very vocal supporter of Palestine in the ongoing conflict, frequently using her platform to advocate for Palestinian rights and call attention to humanitarian issues in the region. Her co-star, Gal Gadot, who is Israeli and served in the Israeli Defense Forces, has been extremely open in her support of Israel. Their open stances on opposing views have isolated movie-goers from both political parties, with the actors receiving death threats in August of 2024 ahead of the film’s release. 

These controversies have even affected the production of Disney’s next few live-action films. While remakes of “Lilo and Stitch” and “Moana” have been confirmed and have release dates, four others on Disney’s list have been delayed — “Hercules,” “Robin Hood,” “The Aristocats” and “Bambi” — while the live-action remake of “Tangled” has been canceled wholly. 

Despite what has been happening with these films, fans actually feel excitement for “Lilo and Stitch,” which is set to release May 23. Reactions to trailers for the film have been positive, with many expressing a refreshed feeling at seeing the live-action depiction of Stitch.

Whether Disney continues to follow this route of adapting beloved classics remains to be seen, but with such negative reviews and fan reactions, one can only hope they will decide to pull the plug. 

Contact the author at howlentertainment@wou.edu

Western Oregon University

Facebook   Instagram   X  YouTube

WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY
345 Monmouth Ave. N.
Monmouth OR 97361

503-838-8000 | 1-877-877-1593

Tools

Campus Maps
Canvas
Find People
Portal
WOU Email
Technical Support

Resources

A-Z Index
Accessibility
Academic Calendar
Class Schedule
Jobs at WOU
News
Explore WOU
Partnerships
Student Services
Freedom of Expression

Western Oregon University’s Land Acknowledgement
Western Oregon University in Monmouth, OR is located within the traditional homelands of the Luckiamute Band of Kalapuya. Following the Willamette Valley Treaty of 1855 (Kalapuya etc. Treaty), Kalapuya people were forcibly removed to reservations in Western Oregon. Today, living descendants of these people are a part of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians.

Accessibility    Public Records    Privacy    Student Consumer Information

WOU prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national or ethnic origin, age, religion, marital status, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in all programs, activities and employment practices as required by Title IX, other applicable laws, and policies. Retaliation is prohibited by WOU.