CJB Studios

🎵 So delicious
(it's hot hot)
So delicious
(I put them boys on rock rock)
So delicious
(they wanna slice of what I got)
I'm fergalicious
(t-t-t-t-t-tasty tasty)🎵

20 years ago today on September 19th, 2006, Fergie released her debut solo studio album known as The Dutchess through A&M Records and will.i.am Music Group. The album marked Fergie's official debut as a solo artist while she was still a prominent member of the Black Eyed Peas, following the group's success with Elephunk and Monkey Business. The album's title was inspired by Fergie's nickname and surname, as well as Sarah Ferguson, the former Duchess of York.

There has been some confusion regarding the album's original release date over the years, with some sources listing September 13th, 2006, while others give September 19th. Contemporary coverage from September 19th treated The Dutchess as a newly released album, and September 19th is also the date associated with its release in New Zealand. For that reason, September 19th is the date being recognized here.

The album was recorded largely around the Black Eyed Peas' touring schedule, including sessions aboard the John Lennon studio bus. Fergie had also been working on some of the songs for several years, with the material reportedly spanning approximately seven years. She wanted the project to be more personal and autobiographical, allowing her to explore subjects that included relationships, fame, criticism, self-image and her past struggles with drug addiction.

Musically, The Dutchess experimented with a wide variety of genres and influences, including pop, hip-hop, R&B, reggae, soul, electronica, dance, rock and punk. The album featured collaborations with artists including Ludacris, Rita Marley and John Legend, while will.i.am played a major role in its production and songwriting.

The lead single, "London Bridge", was released on July 18th, 2006, and became Fergie's first solo No. 1 single on the Billboard Hot 100. The second single, "Fergalicious", followed on October 23rd, 2006, and peaked at No. 2. The third single, "Glamorous", was released on February 20th, 2007, and became her second No. 1 single in the United States. The fourth single, "Big Girls Don't Cry", followed on May 22nd, 2007, becoming another major international hit and one of the biggest songs of Fergie's career. The fifth single, "Clumsy", was released on September 25th, 2007, and reached the top five on the Billboard Hot 100. "Finally" was later released as the sixth and final single in 2008.

The album debuted at No. 3 on the US Billboard 200 chart with first-week sales of approximately 142,000 copies before eventually reaching a peak of No. 2. It spent 94 weeks on the Billboard 200 and sold approximately 3.9 million copies in the United States according to Nielsen SoundScan. It also reached No. 1 in Australia and received platinum or multi-platinum certifications in several countries.

The Dutchess was certified five-times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America and platinum by the British Phonographic Industry, with worldwide sales reported at more than 12 million copies. The album also became the first album of the 21st century to produce five top-five singles on the Billboard Hot 100. Each of those five singles eventually surpassed two million digital downloads in the United States, giving Fergie a record for the most multi-platinum digital singles from one album at the time.

The album received mixed reviews from critics upon its release, with some praising Fergie's vocals, the production and the album's variety of musical styles, while others criticized the consistency of the material and some of its lyrics. Despite the mixed critical response, The Dutchess became one of the most commercially successful albums of the 2000s and established Fergie as a major solo pop artist outside of the Black Eyed Peas.

Happy 20th anniversary to The Dutchess!

1 day ago | [YT] | 22

CJB Studios

I know it is way too late to be talking about this now, especially since the complete series has already been released, but I still keep thinking about it. Part of me hopes that someday there will be a fixed version of it—a release that corrects the problems with the current collection and gives The Amazing World of Gumball the physical release it deserved.

To be fair, Gumball did not literally go fifteen years without a physical release. DVDs began in 2012 with The DVD, followed by releases such as The Mystery and The Party, and Warner Archive later released Volume 4. The real problem is that American fans had to wait roughly fourteen or fifteen years before Warner finally released a comprehensive collection containing the entire original series and related material.

That is especially frustrating because Gumball was never an obscure Cartoon Network show. It was one of the network's biggest and most distinctive programs, and a normal season-by-season DVD strategy during the 2010s would have made perfect sense. Instead, physical releases largely stopped while the show was still running, and Warner increasingly treated it as something meant to be consumed through television, digital purchases, and streaming.

The 2026 collection is therefore both welcome and frustrating. It contains all six original seasons, Darwin's Yearbook, and The Gumball Chronicles, which American fans simply did not have in one physical package before. But the timing makes me wonder why Warner waited until the fifteenth anniversary, especially when 2021 would have been such a logical opportunity. The tenth anniversary came only two years after the original series ended, when the show was still relatively fresh and physical media was more prominent. Warner was also releasing other Cartoon Network collections, including Steven Universe, Ed, Edd n Eddy, and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends.

I cannot prove Warner specifically waited for the revival so it could cash in on renewed interest, because we cannot know the company's private intentions without documentation. Still, the timing makes that interpretation understandable: the original series ended in 2019, the tenth anniversary passed without a complete set, the revival brought Gumball back into the public consciousness, and then the complete collection appeared for the fifteenth anniversary.

A 2021 anniversary edition could also have been much more ambitious. Gumball had plenty of potential bonus material: concept art, character designs, storyboards, animatics, interviews, promotional material, deleted material, music-related content, and retrospective features. Earlier DVDs had already included extras such as character galleries, so bonus material was not unprecedented. Most importantly, the original pilot could have been included. For a show with such unusual designs, animation, tone, and production history, seeing the pilot would have been fascinating and would have shown fans how the series evolved.

Instead, the 2026 set has no bonus features at all.

The presentation itself is another major concern. One of the biggest complaints is that some episodes appear to have been presented at approximately 23.976 fps rather than the show's original 25 fps timing, causing the video to play slightly slower and the audio to become slightly lower in pitch. That is particularly noticeable with Gumball's distinctive voices. A similar problem was reportedly already present on the 2014 Volume 4 DVD, suggesting that this may be an old master problem rather than something newly introduced in 2026.

Because Gumball was primarily a British and European production involving Cartoon Network Development Studio Europe and Studio Soi in Germany, 25-fps source material naturally makes sense. However, I cannot prove the exact chain of custody. I would not claim that Hulu simply took PAL masters and converted them itself, nor that Warner literally copied Hulu's streaming files onto the DVDs. It is much more plausible that Hulu and the DVDs could have been created from the same underlying Warner distribution master or closely related derivatives.

That possibility is actually more frustrating because it would mean an old problem may simply have been carried forward instead of Warner going back to the original production materials for a fresh, properly timed anniversary master. The fact that the menu music appears to have normal speed and pitch also suggests that different elements may have come from different sources.

The video quality is another disappointment. The collection is DVD-only and therefore standard definition, despite Gumball being one of the most visually ambitious animated shows Cartoon Network produced. It combines 2D animation, CGI, live action, puppetry, photographs, stop-motion, and other techniques. A series like that deserves to be preserved in the best quality reasonably available.

The episode ordering also raises questions about quality control. Gumball is mostly episodic, but continuity, character development, callbacks, relationships, and voice changes still make ordering relevant. The set begins Season 1 with The End before The DVD, while other seasons contain similar inconsistencies. Some differences can be explained by production order versus broadcast order—the histories of episodes such as The Stories and The Scam are complicated—but the collection does not appear to follow one consistent ordering philosophy. Whether Warner chose broadcast or production order would have been understandable; mixing conventions is what makes it confusing.

The situation reminds me somewhat of the Star Wars DVD releases. The 2006 theatrical versions technically gave fans what they wanted, but used older 1993 LaserDisc-based masters rather than providing the fully restored editions many fans expected. Gumball is not misleading in quite the same way—the 2026 set really is the complete original series—but the word "complete" describes the quantity of content more than the quality of preservation.

That distinction is extremely important to me. A complete series means every episode is physically present. A definitive edition means those episodes are presented in the best available quality, with correct timing and ordering, proper preservation, and meaningful archival material.

That is also why I am divided about buying it. I love Gumball, and the collector in me wants the entire original series physically in one place. After waiting so many years, there is something emotionally satisfying about finally having it. But I also know that I would probably notice the pitch differences, frame-rate issues, strange ordering, lack of HD, and complete absence of bonus features. Instead of simply enjoying owning Gumball, I might constantly think about what Warner could have done better.

The early copies received before the official May 5th release also became interesting because fans were able to identify the same problems across multiple copies. That suggests this was not simply a defective manufacturing batch. If the problem originates in the master, replacing individual discs would not fix it; the mastering or authoring itself would need to change.

As far as I can tell, there has not been a major corrected pressing, replacement program, or new edition that addresses these issues. That is why I am hesitant to pay full price. I would rather wait for a lower price, a corrected release, a Blu-ray edition, or a genuinely deluxe anniversary collection.

Physical media still matters because streaming is convenient but not permanent. Licensing changes, services change, libraries disappear, and availability varies by country. A physical release gives fans something they can actually keep. But that only works as preservation if the physical release itself is properly mastered.

I do not think fans should feel guilty for criticizing the set. Being grateful that something finally exists does not mean we cannot wish it had been done better. The reason people care about the audio, video, ordering, and missing extras is because they love Gumball and want its physical legacy treated with the same care that went into creating the show.

Ultimately, I am glad the complete series exists. I am glad all six seasons, Darwin's Yearbook, and The Gumball Chronicles are finally together physically. But I cannot help thinking about the missed opportunity.

The tenth anniversary in 2021 could have produced a true celebration: HD masters, corrected speed and pitch, consistent episode ordering, Blu-ray, the original pilot, behind-the-scenes material, interviews, artwork, storyboards, deleted material, and other archival content. Instead, Warner waited until the fifteenth anniversary, during the revival era, and released what feels more like a straightforward catalog collection.

Maybe that is the biggest lesson: a product can technically contain everything and still leave fans wanting more. Quantity matters, but so does quality. Convenience matters, but so does preservation. A complete series is not automatically a definitive series.

I still love Gumball. My frustration comes from caring about it so much. I want future fans to experience the original series in the best possible form, not simply whatever version happens to be available on a streaming service or whatever master was put onto a DVD years later.

So while I am happy that the complete series finally exists physically, I cannot help thinking Warner missed a tremendous opportunity. They could have done this in 2021. They could have made it a real anniversary event. They could have included the pilot, bonus features, HD video, proper episode ordering, and corrected audio and timing.

Instead, we got the complete series in the most literal sense of the word.

And while I am grateful that we finally got that much, I still think Gumball deserved better.

5 days ago | [YT] | 39

CJB Studios

30 years ago today, on September 13th, 1996, the world lost Tupac Shakur at the age of 25. He passed away six days after being shot four times in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada.

For those of you who don’t know, Tupac Shakur, widely known by his stage names 2Pac and Makaveli, was an American rapper and actor whose career left a lasting mark on hip-hop and popular culture. He became one of the most influential musical artists of the 20th century and was recognized for using his music to discuss social inequality, political issues, poverty, injustice, and the experiences of African Americans. Although some of his work reflected the harder-edged themes of gangsta rap, much of his music also explored personal struggles, relationships, ambition, and the challenges of everyday life.

Shakur was born in New York City to parents who were members of the Black Panther Party. He was primarily raised by his mother, Afeni Shakur, and moved with her to the San Francisco Bay Area in 1988. His recording career gained major attention with the release of his debut album, 2Pacalypse Now, in 1991. The album established him as an important voice in West Coast hip-hop, particularly because of its political themes and social commentary.

He continued building his reputation with his 1993 album, whose original title is commonly shortened or censored in family-friendly references, followed by Me Against the World in 1995. His career reached another major milestone with All Eyez on Me in 1996. The Diamond-certified album, considered the first hip-hop double album, featured a more aggressive and commercially focused sound. It produced two Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles, "California Love" and "How Do U Want It."

Shakur was also involved in several musical collaborations and projects. He formed the group Thug Life and worked with artists including Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, and the Outlawz. In addition to music, he developed a successful acting career and appeared in films such as Juice, Poetic Justice, Above the Rim, Bullet, Gridlock'd, and Gang Related.

During the mid-1990s, Shakur's career was accompanied by significant personal and legal difficulties. In November 1994, he was shot five times in the lobby of a New York City recording studio. He later faced legal difficulties and spent eight months in prison following a conviction in a highly publicized case. He was released in 1995 while appealing the case.

After his release, Shakur signed with Death Row Records, the label headed by Marion "Suge" Knight. His association with the label placed him prominently within the increasingly intense East Coast–West Coast rivalry in hip-hop. His dispute with fellow rapper and former friend Christopher Wallace, better known as the Notorious B.I.G., became one of the most widely publicized conflicts in the music industry during the 1990s.

On the night of September 7th, 1996, Shakur traveled to Paradise, Nevada, with Suge Knight to attend a boxing match between Bruce Seldon and Mike Tyson at the MGM Grand. After the event, an associate of Knight recognized Orlando Anderson, a member of the South Side Compton Crips, in the hotel's lobby. Shakur was told that Anderson had allegedly been involved in an earlier robbery involving members of their group.

A confrontation subsequently took place, and security footage from the MGM Grand captured the incident. Shakur later returned briefly to his hotel room before joining Knight again. The two eventually traveled toward Death Row's Club 662 in a black BMW 750iL as part of a larger group of vehicles.

At approximately 11:00pm, police officers stopped the BMW on Las Vegas Boulevard because of its loud music and because license plates were not visible. The plates were located in the trunk, and the vehicle was allowed to continue without receiving a ticket.

About fifteen minutes later, at approximately 11:15pm, Shakur and Knight were stopped at a traffic light when a white Cadillac pulled alongside their vehicle. Someone inside the Cadillac opened fire before quickly leaving the area. Shakur was struck several times, while Knight also sustained injuries from broken glass.

Shakur's bodyguard, Frank Alexander, was not traveling in the BMW at the time. Alexander later explained that he had been assigned to drive a separate vehicle belonging to Shakur's girlfriend, Kidada Jones.

Shakur was transported to the University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, where doctors placed him under heavy sedation and on life support. Despite medical treatment, his condition worsened. On the afternoon of September 13th, 1996, six days after the shooting, Shakur died from complications related to his injuries. He was pronounced dead at 4:03pm.

His official causes of death were respiratory failure and cardiopulmonary arrest associated with multiple gunshot wounds. Shakur's body was cremated the following day.

For years, the circumstances surrounding Shakur's death remained unresolved. In 2002, investigative journalist Chuck Philips published an extensive report in the Los Angeles Times concerning the murder. The report identified Orlando Anderson as a suspected participant in the shooting and examined the confrontation that had taken place earlier that evening.

Philips's reporting also raised questions about whether individuals connected to New York City's criminal underworld and Christopher Wallace could have been involved. Anderson and Wallace denied involvement, and Wallace maintained an alibi. Music journalist John Leland of The New York Times later described the available evidence as inconclusive.

In 2011, the FBI released documents connected to its investigation through the Freedom of Information Act. The documents discussed an extortion operation involving the Jewish Defense League and threats made against Shakur and other rappers. However, the material did not establish a direct connection between those threats and Shakur's murder.

The case remained open for decades. On July 18th, 2023, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department executed a search warrant as part of its continuing investigation into Shakur's death. Investigators had also searched a residence connected to a suspect in Henderson, Nevada.

On September 29th, 2023, authorities announced the arrest of Duane "Keffe D" Davis in connection with Shakur's murder. Davis pleaded not guilty on November 2nd, 2023, in Las Vegas.

The case continued through several delays before Davis's trial was ultimately scheduled for August 10th, 2026. By that time, Davis was being held at Nevada's High Desert State Prison while serving a separate sentence stemming from a jailhouse fight.

Davis's trial for Shakur's murder began on August 10th, 2026. On August 31st, 2026, after nearly three hours of deliberation, the jury found Davis guilty of first-degree murder. The conviction came approximately one week before the 30th anniversary of Shakur's death.

Although Davis was convicted in connection with the murder, the person who actually fired the fatal shots has not been conclusively identified.

Shakur's influence became even more apparent following his death. His posthumous album Greatest Hits, released in 1998, became one of the relatively small number of hip-hop albums to receive Diamond certification in the United States. Several additional albums were released after his death, including The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory, which was released under his Makaveli stage name. His posthumous recordings continued to achieve significant commercial success.

His impact has extended far beyond music. In 2002, Shakur was inducted into the Hip-Hop Hall of Fame. In 2017, he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame during his first year of eligibility. Rolling Stone also recognized him among the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time.

In 2023, Shakur received a posthumous star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. His music, songwriting, activism, and cultural influence have continued to receive attention from scholars, historians, musicians, and fans around the world.

More than three decades after his emergence as a recording artist, Tupac Shakur remains one of the most recognizable and influential figures in hip-hop history. His ability to combine social commentary with personal storytelling helped shape the direction of rap music and inspired generations of artists. Although his career was relatively brief, his music and cultural legacy have continued to resonate with audiences long after his death.

Rest in peace, Tupac. You will always be remembered, and your music and legacy will continue to live on for generations to come.

Tupac Amaru Shakur
(June 16th, 1971-September 13th, 1996)

1 week ago | [YT] | 40

CJB Studios

There’s something I’ve been wanting to talk about regarding this video, particularly because it is something that has been sitting privately for quite a long time.

Throughout October 2024 and continuing into the present, the way I have handled the release of content on this channel has changed somewhat. Back when I had a Screen Time limit enabled, I was generally restricted to uploading no more than one video per day. Since that restriction was eventually removed after transferring everything to my iPhone 16 Pro Max, I have had much more freedom to decide when individual pieces of content should be released.

This particular video, however, is a little different.

The rendered frame shown below comes from a comparison video that I originally created on January 11th, 2024. Even when I was making it, I already had reservations about ever releasing it because of the copyrighted material presented throughout the video.

For that reason, I deliberately kept it private rather than exporting and releasing it at the time.

I am also intentionally leaving the identifying text out of the rendered frame. I do not want to reveal exactly what this video is about yet. Even if some people are able to figure it out, I would rather leave that as part of the surprise until the video itself is eventually released.

On August 13th, 2026, I reconsidered the decision to keep the video private after discovering that I still had a backup copy of the original file. Two days later, on August 15th, I decided to give it a chance and uploaded it privately.

Just as I had expected, it received a copyright claim.

Because I had anticipated this possibility from the beginning, I decided to dispute the claim and allow the copyright owner to review the situation. I knew that the dispute could have several different outcomes, including the claim being released, remaining in place, expiring due to no response, or potentially escalating into a more serious copyright matter.

Unfortunately, the outcome I received was not the one I had hoped for.

On September 11th, 2026, the copyright owner reviewed my dispute and rejected it.

As a result, the original copyright claim remains in place.

Although this was certainly not the outcome I was hoping for, it is important to understand what that actually means. A rejected Content ID dispute does not automatically mean that the video has been removed, nor does it automatically result in a copyright strike. A Content ID claim and a copyright removal request are different processes with different consequences.

At the same time, I don't want to pretend that this outcome didn't affect me.

To be completely honest, I was really anxious and stressed out while waiting for the decision. As the response period continued and the possibility of the claim being released got closer, part of me started wondering whether I might actually get the outcome I had hoped for.

Then, right when I was getting so close to the end of the waiting period, I finally received the response.

And unfortunately, it was a rejection.

That certainly did not make the situation any easier. If anything, seeing the decision arrive after waiting and wondering about it for so long only amplified the anxiety and stress I had already been experiencing.

The ironic part is that I already knew this was a possibility from the very beginning.

This is exactly why I originally kept the video private in the first place.

I knew that the copyrighted material could cause problems. I knew that uploading the video could result in a Content ID claim. And I knew that disputing that claim did not guarantee that the copyright owner would agree with me.

So in a way, the outcome I was afraid of eventually happened anyway.

At the very least, however, the situation has not escalated into the most serious outcome I was preparing for. The video has not been subjected to a copyright removal request, and I have not received a copyright strike as a result of this claim.

That doesn't necessarily make the rejection any less disappointing, but I am glad that the situation has remained at the Content ID claim stage for now.

There is technically another option available to me at this point: I could appeal the rejected dispute.

However, I have decided not to do that.

That isn't because I know an appeal would automatically fail. I don't. There is always a possibility that an appeal could produce a different result. However, an appeal can also give the copyright owner another opportunity to escalate the matter, including potentially submitting a copyright removal request. If a valid removal request were ultimately issued, that could result in the video being removed and a copyright strike being applied to the channel.

Considering how long I have already kept this video private and how cautious I have been about protecting the channel, I don't feel that taking that additional risk is worthwhile.

I would much rather deal with an active Content ID claim than potentially turn the situation into something substantially more serious.

Thankfully, that did not happen with the original dispute.

For now, I am therefore leaving the dispute process where it is.

There is also a possibility that the copyright owner could manually release the claim at some point in the future. Copyright owners do have the ability to release claims, so it is technically possible. However, I am not expecting that to happen, and I don't want to make any plans around the assumption that it will.

For the time being, the claim remains active.

And now I have a decision to make.

Normally, if I were dealing with a situation where I wanted the audience's opinion about what to do with a video, I would probably make a poll and let everyone vote.

However, because this situation is specifically connected to the description of this video and because I already have everything prepared here, I think it makes more sense to ask the question right here instead.

So I want to let you decide.

Should I release this video with the copyright claim still in place?

Or would you rather I leave it private or make changes to it first?

If you think I should release it despite the claim, then I will seriously consider doing so.

If you think I should leave it private, I will respect that as well.

Of course, the final decision is still ultimately mine, but after keeping this video private for more than two years, I genuinely want to know what you think.

Part of me still wants to release it.

Another part of me is wondering whether the exact reason I kept it private for so long has now come back to prove why I was hesitant in the first place.

That's what makes this decision so difficult.

I knew this was risky when I created the video. I knew it was risky when I uploaded it privately. I knew it was risky when I disputed the claim.

And now I know exactly what the copyright owner's answer was.

Even after all this time, I still find it interesting that something I created more than two years ago ended up going through this entire process.

Whether this video ultimately makes its public debut in its original form, gets modified first, or remains private is something I still have to decide.

For now, though, the surprise remains intact.

The title and exact subject of the video are still being kept under wraps.

And if you've somehow managed to figure it out from the clues I've left behind...

Well, congratulations.

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 week ago | [YT] | 20

CJB Studios

Today marks 25 years since September 11th, 2001—a quarter of a century since an ordinary September morning became one of the defining moments in our nation’s history and changed the lives of so many forever.

Twenty-five years have passed. Generations have grown older, the world has changed in ways that could not have been imagined that morning, and time has created distance from the events of that day. Yet time cannot erase the significance of what happened or the weight carried by those who experienced it firsthand.

Behind the history are real people—mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends, coworkers, first responders, and countless others whose lives were forever changed. We remember those who lost their lives, the families and loved ones left behind, the communities that carried on, and the ordinary people who showed extraordinary courage in the face of unimaginable circumstances.

Today is not about trying to relive that morning, but about recognizing what it meant, what it cost, and the people at the heart of it. For those who lived through it and those who lost someone that day, September 11th is more than a date in history—it remains something deeply personal.

Twenty-five years later, we pause with solemnity, respect, and gratitude to remember the lives, sacrifices, courage, and lasting consequences of that day. The distance of time may grow, but some moments in history carry a significance that time alone cannot erase. We remember, and we carry that memory forward.

1 week ago | [YT] | 59

CJB Studios

I've been thinking about the Toy Story franchise for years, and the more I revisit the movies, commentaries, production history, and the way the series evolved across generations, the more I think Toy Story is one of those rare franchises where the movies almost seem to speak to each other across time. Earlier themes sometimes become later events: Toy Story 2 establishes the fear of forgotten toys, while Toy Story 3 eventually puts the characters in the landfill; Molly's iPod is a snapshot of 2010, while Toy Story 5 now explores toys competing with technology. Not everything had to be planned decades in advance for those connections to become meaningful.

And yet, I still feel Toy Story 3 was the natural ending to the story I personally cared about.

I was born on October 3rd, 1999, so I wasn't alive for Toy Story in 1995 and was born about a month before Toy Story 2. I grew up with the first two on VHS/DVD, then saw Toy Story 3 at a drive-in when I was ten. Even without knowing anything about narrative structure, critics, or online discussions, I walked away thinking, "This feels like the end."

Looking back, I understand why. Toy Story begins with jealousy, insecurity, replacement, and Buzz's identity crisis. Woody teaches Buzz that he's a toy. Toy Story 2 reverses that relationship: Woody becomes the one questioning his purpose. He considers becoming a museum collectible, but Buzz reminds him that being preserved forever means little if he isn't actually loved and played with. The Prospecter also warns about children growing up and toys being forgotten. Toy Story 3 takes that fear and makes it literal: Andy grows up, the toys are abandoned, and they eventually face the incinerator together.

That scene is incredibly heavy because Toy Story 3 isn't really asking whether toys can survive an incinerator. It's asking what happens when their story seems to be ending. They hold hands because they believe they have reached that point. But the movie's real message isn't that growing up is a betrayal. Andy is supposed to grow up. Childhood ending doesn't make childhood meaningless.

When Andy gives the toys to Bonnie and drives away, it feels like more than Woody saying goodbye to Andy. It feels like the audience saying goodbye to childhood itself. I hadn't reached that point at ten, but the movie felt like a preview of something I knew would eventually happen to me. After graduating high school in 2018, that feeling became even more meaningful: you can't stay a kid forever, and letting something go doesn't erase what it meant.

That's why Woody's trilogy arc feels complete. Toy Story asks whether he can accept Buzz. Toy Story 2 asks whether he can accept the temporary nature of being a toy. Toy Story 3 asks whether he can accept Andy growing up. Finally, he does. A toy doesn't need to belong to one child forever; it needs to be loved while that relationship exists.

There's also a fascinating parallel between the characters growing up and Pixar's technology: the original Toy Story was the first fully computer-animated feature, Toy Story 2 pushed digital filmmaking further, Toy Story 3 looks dramatically more sophisticated, and Toy Story 4 becomes almost startlingly realistic. Pixar and its characters have, in a strange way, aged together.

When Toy Story 4 was announced in 2014, I was fifteen and wondered why another movie was necessary. I eventually liked it, but never felt it was necessary. That's an important distinction. Toy Story 3 asks, "What happens when the child grows up?" Toy Story 4 asks, "What happens to the toy afterward?" Woody has to discover who he is without Andy, and Bo Peep represents a life where a toy isn't defined by belonging to one child. I can respect that story without believing we needed it.

I haven't seen Toy Story 5 yet, either during its theatrical run or now, because I genuinely want to give it a chance. Its toys-versus-technology premise interests me more than I expected. Childhood has changed enormously since 2010: smartphones, tablets, social media, streaming, apps, and constantly connected devices now occupy a much larger place in children's lives. Toy Story 3 showed a child growing beyond toys; Toy Story 5 appears to ask what happens when toys have to compete with technology for children's attention. Conceptually, that feels like a more direct progression from Toy Story 3 than Toy Story 4 did. Whether it works is something I'll decide after seeing it.

Molly is part of that conversation too. Toy Story 3 establishes that Andy can't simply give his toys to her because she's already growing out of them, with her iPod and teen interests. At the time, it was just a believable detail; now it's a time capsule. The toys stay relatively consistent while children, technology, and culture change around them.

Lightyear adds another layer. I first heard about it in 2020 and was skeptical but interested. The idea that it is the fictional movie that inspired Andy to want the Buzz Lightyear toy is clever, although it naturally raised questions about Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, what movie Andy actually watched, and how all of this fits together. The original Toy Story even had an early concept involving a Buzz cartoon, while Toy Story 2 begins with something resembling a Buzz game/action adventure. Lightyear demonstrates how far the franchise can stretch, even if that flexibility can make the larger universe confusing. The fact that Buzz Lightyear of Star Command isn't currently on Disney+ while Lightyear is only adds to that oddity.

The franchise also has a fascinating "ghost history." Before Pixar's Toy Story 3, Disney's Circle 7 Animation was developing a completely different version involving Buzz being recalled and destroyed/replaced. Lee Unkrich said Pixar deliberately didn't read that screenplay when developing its own film so they wouldn't be influenced by it. I wouldn't claim the final movie secretly borrowed from it, but the existence of abandoned versions shows how many Toy Story stories almost existed.

I also don't think every later connection proves Pixar planned everything from the beginning. Woody teaching Buzz about being a toy, Buzz later teaching Woody why being one matters, Stinky Pete's warning becoming the landfill, Molly's iPod becoming a technological time capsule, and the franchise eventually exploring toys after Andy are meaningful because the themes were strong enough to generate new stories—not necessarily because everything was mapped out decades in advance.

The pandemic era and Lightyear make the franchise's expansion even more interesting. Soul, Luca, and Turning Red were affected by Disney+'s release strategy, and by Lightyear's 2022 theatrical release, audience habits had changed. Its performance had many possible factors: pandemic-era viewing habits, streaming expectations, the spin-off premise, competition, and controversy surrounding a brief romantic scene. I don't think that one scene alone explains its performance. Likewise, the argument that Andy wouldn't have watched something like Lightyear in 1995 isn't necessarily the point; it was intended as a fictional blockbuster from inside the Toy Story universe.

I don't hate Toy Story 4 or Lightyear, and I won't judge Toy Story 5 before seeing it. I simply think Toy Story 3 was the first movie I watched as a child where I instinctively understood that the story was complete.

That doesn't mean later movies erase that ending. Maybe Toy Story 3 was the end of Andy's Toy Story, not the end of every possible Toy Story. The Toons, Toy Story of Terror!, and Toy Story That Time Forgot were easier for me to accept because they could simply be adventures involving characters whose major arc was already complete. A future Toy Story 6 or 7 would make me question the need for continuation even more, although I wouldn't treat unannounced movies as facts.

I've felt similarly about Back to the Future as a trilogy, the first three Ice Age movies as a particular era, and the original six Star Wars films as a complete saga. Later installments can be enjoyable while an earlier story still feels complete.

Ultimately, Toy Story isn't really about toys to me. It's about change, identity, replacement, purpose, growing up, being forgotten, and letting go. The children change, technology changes, and the toys have to adapt. That's why the franchise has remained relevant for more than thirty years.

I still haven't seen Toy Story 5, but I'll give it a chance. If it's fantastic, that won't erase what Toy Story 3 meant to me. If it turns out to be the perfect final chapter, maybe I'll understand why Pixar kept going. Until then, Toy Story 3 will always be the ending I personally felt was right—not because critics told me so, but because I was ten years old in a drive-in theater, watched Andy drive away, and somehow understood that his story had reached its destination.

Maybe that's what a great ending does. It doesn't always need someone to explain that it's an ending.

Sometimes you just know.

The toys survived. Andy grew up. Their relationship changed, but what they meant to each other didn't disappear. And no matter how many more adventures Woody, Buzz, Jessie, and the others have, Toy Story 3 will always feel like the moment when the story I grew up with finally said goodbye.

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 week ago | [YT] | 36

CJB Studios

Happy Labor Day, everyone!

1 week ago | [YT] | 42

CJB Studios

I’ve talked about the “I am your father” moment from Star Wars before, including briefly in 2023, but I don’t think I ever really explained why it affects me the way it does.

Part of that is because there isn’t much left to say about one of the most famous plot twists in movie history. It has been analyzed, quoted, parodied, and referenced so many times that “I am your father” has practically become a phrase of its own.

But after watching Star Wars in chronological order, I’ve realized there’s something deeper happening here.

The first time you experience it, it’s one of cinema’s greatest surprises.

The second time, after watching everything that came before it chronologically, it becomes something much darker.

It becomes horrifying.

Before getting into why, though, I should explain how I first encountered the line.

I actually didn’t discover it through The Empire Strikes Back. I first heard it in Toy Story 2, during Buzz Lightyear’s confrontation with Zurg:

“No, Buzz. I AM your father.”

I had no idea it was a Star Wars reference. I just thought it was funny. It wasn’t until around 2007 that I finally heard Darth Vader say the actual line and understood where the joke came from.

Looking back, that’s fitting because Toy Story 2 deliberately plays with Star Wars’ cultural legacy, even mirroring the Vader/Luke confrontation visually.

And even though I already knew the punchline, Vader’s revelation still gave me chills.

Why?

Why does a scene that has been spoiled for generations still work?

I think the answer becomes clear when you experience Star Wars in two different orders.

In release order, The Empire Strikes Back is a shock. In A New Hope, Obi-Wan tells Luke that Darth Vader betrayed and murdered his father. You believe him. Luke believes him. Vader is the villain, and Anakin Skywalker is dead.

Then Vader tells Luke:

“No. I am your father.”

Suddenly, everything changes. The villain isn’t merely connected to the hero. He is his father, and Obi-Wan’s earlier words no longer mean what we thought they meant.

That secrecy was crucial. George Lucas deliberately kept the real revelation extremely restricted, and Mark Hamill was given the actual line shortly before filming so his reaction would be genuine.

But once you know the twist, you can never experience the original trilogy exactly the same way again.

Then the prequels change everything.

Now we know who Darth Vader actually was.

We know Anakin Skywalker was a child who wanted to become a Jedi. We know Obi-Wan wasn’t simply someone who knew Vader; he was Anakin’s master, teacher, friend, and brother in everything but blood.

That’s why I think the prequels do more than “foreshadow” the original trilogy.

They recontextualize it.

Attack of the Clones gives us a perfect example. Count Dooku tells Obi-Wan that the Republic is controlled by a Sith Lord and that Darth Sidious is manipulating the Senate and the Separatists.

At the time, it sounds like villainous manipulation.

Then Revenge of the Sith reveals that Dooku was telling the truth.

The Republic really was being controlled by Sidious. The Senate really was being manipulated. And Palpatine—the man the Jedi trusted—was behind it all.

Watching chronologically makes the scene feel like a horror movie where one character is screaming the truth while everyone else assumes he’s wrong.

Then we watch Palpatine manipulate Anakin through his fear of losing Padmé. Anakin convinces himself that the terrible things he’s doing are necessary.

He wants to protect the people he loves.

Instead, that fear becomes the thing that destroys everything.

When he tells Padmé that they can rule the galaxy together, it isn’t just a villain speech. It’s the same obsession with power that ultimately destroys him.

Then Obi-Wan tells him:

“You have become the very thing you swore to destroy.”

And that is Anakin’s entire tragedy.

He wanted to destroy the Sith. He became a Sith.

He wanted to protect the Republic. He helped create the Empire.

He wanted to save Padmé. His actions contributed to losing her.

Twenty years later, that tragedy walks into The Empire Strikes Back wearing a mask.

Vader tells Luke, “You do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power.”

That’s Anakin’s obsession with power all over again.

Then comes the revelation:

“You are beaten…”

“Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.”

“He told me enough. He told me you killed him.”

“No. I am your father.”

The first time, you’re shocked.

After the prequels, you’re horrified.

Because now you know who this man used to be: the boy who wanted to become a Jedi, the apprentice who loved Obi-Wan, the man who loved Padmé, and the father Luke never knew.

And then Vader offers Luke the same dream Anakin once offered Padmé:

“Together we can rule the galaxy as father and son.”

That’s why I don’t think it’s merely a callback.

In Revenge of the Sith, Anakin wants to rule the galaxy with the woman he loves.

In The Empire Strikes Back, Vader wants to rule it with his son.

The relationship changed.

The fantasy didn’t.

That’s what the prequels add to the original trilogy. They don’t make Vader more surprising.

They make him sadder.

They make Obi-Wan sadder.

They make Luke’s confrontation with him sadder.

They make the original trilogy feel haunted.

This is also why I find the sequel trilogy’s twists interesting to compare. With Kylo Ren and Han Solo, the audience already knows Han is Kylo’s father. The scene is about Kylo trying to convince himself that Han means nothing to him, rather than revealing their relationship.

And if you knew the old Expanded Universe, there was another layer: Han and Leia’s son Jacen Solo also fell to the dark side and became Darth Caedus. Ben Solo/Kylo Ren is obviously a different character, but the similarities are striking.

The point isn’t that familiar ideas are bad. Star Wars has always reused mythology.

The difference is that The Empire Strikes Back didn’t simply make a familiar idea surprising. It took information we thought we understood and completely changed its meaning.

That’s much harder to accomplish.

The Rise of Skywalker’s Rey/Palpatine revelation is another example. It’s certainly a surprise, but it creates a different question: “How does that work?” Vader’s revelation creates: “What does this mean?”

Those are different kinds of twists.

And that’s why I think the prequels have an advantage that isn’t discussed enough.

They don’t make the original trilogy more surprising.

They make it more tragic.

There’s also a funny full-circle connection for me: the first time I ever heard “I am your father” was through Toy Story 2, a Pixar movie deliberately parodying Star Wars. And now Disney owns Star Wars.

At the time, I had no idea about any of those connections.

I just thought Buzz Lightyear was fighting Zurg.

But that’s the cultural legacy of this scene. By the time Toy Story 2 came out, “I am your father” was so recognizable that a children’s movie could build an entire joke around everyone knowing the reference.

And that’s the irony.

Zurg saying it is funny because everyone knows the reference.

Vader saying it was terrifying because nobody was supposed to know it yet.

The parody exists because the original worked.

And the original still works because its power was never dependent on the surprise alone.

The surprise is gone.

The meaning isn’t.

That’s why, even after hearing the line countless times, I still get chills.

The first viewing makes the twist unforgettable.

The second makes it heartbreaking.

And when a story can do both decades apart, that’s when you know you’ve experienced something genuinely special.

“I am your father” isn’t just one of the most famous plot twists in movie history.

It’s one of the rare twists that becomes more meaningful after you already know it.

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 43

CJB Studios

One of my favorite pieces of dark humor in Terminator 2: Judgment Day happens shortly after John Connor realizes that the Terminator needs to learn one very important lesson: human beings are not supposed to be killed.

As John and the T-800 approach Pescadero State Hospital, John makes the Terminator promise that he won't kill anyone. He asks, “Now, you gotta promise me you're not gonna kill anyone, right?” The Terminator simply answers, “Right.”

John presses him: “Swear?”

The Terminator doesn't quite understand the request. “What?”

John tells him to put up his hand and say, “I swear I won't kill anyone.”

The T-800 obediently raises his hand and says, “I swear I will not kill anyone.”

John accepts the promise. “All right. Let's go.”

It seems like an important moment. John has just established a moral boundary for a machine whose entire existence has been built around killing people.

Then they reach the hospital entrance.

A security guard stops them and informs them that visiting hours are from 10:00 to 4:00, Monday through Friday.

And then the Terminator demonstrates exactly how literally he has interpreted John's promise.

He pulls out his gun and shoots the guard.

John immediately reacts with, “What the heck are you doing?!”

The wounded guard cries out in pain and protests that he's been shot, begging the Terminator not to shoot him again or kill him.

And then comes one of the great deadpan punchlines in the movie.

The Terminator calmly responds:

“He'll live.”

Then he opens the gate, gets back on the motorcycle, and he and John continue into the hospital.

That exchange is funny because the T-800 has technically kept its promise while completely missing—or perhaps deliberately exploiting—the spirit of what John meant.

John didn't mean, “You can shoot people as long as you don't kill them.”

He meant, essentially, “Stop hurting people.”

But the Terminator has been given a very specific instruction: don't kill anyone.

So it finds a solution.

Shoot the guy.

Just don't kill him.

And this is where I have to admit something: even though I know the scene is supposed to be funny, I actually feel pretty bad for the security guard.

Because, let's be honest, getting shot anywhere isn't exactly a pleasant experience.

The fact that the T-800 has decided the man will survive doesn't make the experience any less terrifying or painful for him. He's suddenly been shot by a seemingly unstoppable man on a motorcycle, he's crying out in pain and begging not to be shot again, and from his perspective this must be an absolutely horrifying few seconds.

A nonfatal gunshot wound is still an injury. Depending on what is hit, a gunshot to the leg can damage muscles, nerves, blood vessels, and bone and can require serious medical treatment.

So while I'm laughing at the Terminator's literal interpretation of John's command, there's also a little part of me watching that poor guy thinking:

“Man, I really hope somebody helps this guy.”

Because as funny as the scene is supposed to be, there's no getting around the fact that this security guard was simply doing his job. He wasn't trying to kill anyone. He wasn't chasing John and the Terminator. He was standing at the entrance and telling them that visiting hours were over.

And for that, he gets shot.

That's a pretty rough day at work.

There's also an interesting difference between the screenplay and the finished movie that makes this scene worth looking at even more closely.

In the screenplay version I've been able to find, the Terminator shoots the guard in the thigh, causing him to drop to the ground while screaming and clutching his leg. The Terminator then kicks the guard's gun away, deals with the security booth, opens the gate, and returns to the motorcycle.

The finished movie presents the moment somewhat differently, with the guard being shot in the legs in a way that's commonly remembered as the T-800 shooting him in the knees.

But regardless of the exact staging, the basic joke remains the same: the T-800 has found a way to obey John's command without actually behaving peacefully.

And then there's the really interesting “Sorry” detail.

For years, I've heard that John was originally supposed to say “Sorry” to the wounded guard as he and the Terminator drove away. And according to Van Ling, who was heavily involved with the Terminator 2 special-edition materials and production history, there was indeed a version of the script in which John was supposed to say “Sorry” after the guard was shot.

The important distinction is that John doesn't say it in the finished movie.

The surviving script material I've been able to find also doesn't show the “Sorry” line at that point in the scene. So I wouldn't claim that it's part of the final screenplay as we know it.

But Van Ling's commentary is interesting because it suggests that this wasn't simply a line invented by fans after the fact. It was apparently something that had existed in an earlier version of the scene.

And honestly, I think it would have made the scene even funnier.

Imagine John having just forced a Terminator to swear that it won't kill anybody.

The Terminator immediately shoots a security guard.

The guard is screaming in pain.

The Terminator calmly says, “He'll live.”

And then, as they drive away, John says:

“Sorry.”

It's such an absurdly human reaction to an utterly inhuman situation.

And it would make me feel even more sympathy for the guard.

Because John would essentially be acknowledging something the Terminator doesn't seem to understand yet:

The fact that someone survives doesn't mean that what happened to them was OK.

That's really the heart of the joke.

The T-800 is learning morality, but at this point it understands morality almost like a machine understands a rule.

Don't kill people.

OK.

It doesn't necessarily understand that shooting somebody can still cause tremendous pain and suffering.

It doesn't understand that the security guard was an innocent person who was simply doing his job.

It doesn't understand that John isn't merely asking for a lower body count. He's trying to teach the Terminator that human beings shouldn't be treated as disposable obstacles.

And that's what makes the hospital setting so perfect.

Where does this happen?

At a hospital.

A hospital exists to care for people who are sick or injured. It's one of the very places where you would expect someone who has just been shot to receive medical attention.

So the T-800 shoots a security guard in the leg, leaves him wounded and screaming outside the entrance, and then casually proceeds into the very facility where injured people are treated.

It's almost as though the Terminator's reasoning is:

I didn't kill him.

He'll live.

We're at a hospital.

Problem solved.

Except, of course, they don't stop to help the guy.

They just leave.

And that clinical lack of concern is precisely what makes the T-800's response so funny. There's no apology. No remorse. No “Are you all right?”

Just:

“He'll live.”

It's the perfect Terminator answer.

What's particularly clever about the scene is that it isn't merely a random joke inserted into an action sequence. It tells us something about the T-800 and about the larger story of Terminator 2.

John is trying to teach a machine that was created to kill humans that human life has value. But the Terminator doesn't immediately understand the reason behind John's command. It understands the command itself.

That's a very important distinction.

There is a difference between following a rule and understanding why the rule exists.

The T-800 can still use violence. It can still overpower people. It can still fire weapons. It can still cause enormous destruction. But John has imposed one specific limitation: nobody gets killed.

So the Terminator begins operating within that limitation as literally as possible.

This becomes a recurring idea throughout the movie. The T-800 gradually learns more about human behavior, humor, relationships, compassion, and sacrifice. But it doesn't become human overnight. John is essentially teaching it morality one lesson at a time.

And the hospital scene is an early, hilarious example of that process.

John thinks he has taught the Terminator not to hurt people.

The Terminator thinks it has been instructed not to kill people.

Those are two very different things.

And that's why I can laugh at this scene while simultaneously feeling sorry for the guard.

On one level, it's a brilliantly constructed joke about a machine finding the loophole in a human command.

On another level, it's a guy getting shot simply because he happened to be standing between John, the Terminator, and the hospital.

So yes, “He'll live” is funny.

But I can't help thinking:

“Sure, he'll live... but somebody better get that poor guy some medical attention.”

And if Van Ling is right that John was originally supposed to say “Sorry” as they drove away, I think that little word would have added an interesting human touch to the scene.

John would have recognized what the Terminator hadn't quite learned yet.

Survival isn't the same thing as being unharmed.

And not killing someone isn't necessarily the same thing as treating human life with compassion.

That's the T-800 in a nutshell.

A machine designed to kill has been given a new moral boundary—and its first instinct is to find the loophole.

Don't kill anyone.

So it shoots a guy in the leg.

Then it calmly looks at John and says:

“He'll live.”

And somewhere outside Pescadero State Hospital, there's one very unlucky security guard having what was probably the worst shift of his life.

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 28

CJB Studios

Last night, I had the chance to see the 35th-anniversary re-release of Terminator 2: Judgment Day in theaters with my dad and a friend of ours, and let me tell you—it was awesome! Seeing a movie that you’ve already experienced in theaters and rewatched multiple times at home return to the big screen is already a unique experience, especially because it can make you appreciate the film in a completely different way. I actually experienced something similar last year when Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith was re-released in theaters. I had originally seen it during its 2005 theatrical run and had watched it countless times at home since then, but seeing it back on the big screen made me feel like I could never quite watch it at home the same way again.

However, seeing a movie in theaters that you didn’t get the opportunity to experience during its original theatrical run is an entirely different feeling. That’s exactly what made this experience with Terminator 2 so special for me, since I wasn’t even born when the film originally came out in 1991. Getting to finally experience such a landmark movie on the big screen, decades after its original release, was something I’ll definitely remember.

3 weeks ago | [YT] | 29