Basically, the same January week in which Prince Harry’s Spare was published, King Charles told the Sussexes that they were being evicted from Frogmore Cottage. The same Frogmore Cottage given to them by QEII, the same property for which they paid over $3 million for renovations and lease agreements. The British media was gleeful about the punishment from Charles – everyone, it seemed, loathed the idea of Harry, Meghan and their children having a safe, secure and entirely paid for home in the UK. So now the eviction is complete – Frogmore Cottage stands empty on the Royal Windsor estate.

Harry and Meghan have finally cleared out Windsor’s Frogmore Cottage and returned the keys to King Charles — six months after getting their eviction notice. Their remaining possessions at the pile were shipped to their California mansion just ahead of tomorrow’s deadline. They will no longer have a UK home and may have to rely on hotels or friends if they visit.

It comes amid renewed scrutiny of royal spending. Five-bed, Grade II-listed Frogmore — given a £2.4million makeover by the Sussexes — is now set to be rented out. Aides will not say whether Prince Andrew will leave 31-room Royal Lodge to move in. It is understood the Duke of York is resisting and has a 75-year lease on his current home.

The Sun understands the Sussexes would have to reach a “private agreement” with Charles if they wanted to stay at any royal homes again.

At the annual Sovereign Grant account briefing on royal finances, Sir Michael Stevens, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said: “We can confirm that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have vacated Frogmore Cottage. We will not be going into any detail on those arrangements here. Safe to say that, as has previously been stated, the duke and duchess have paid for the expenditure incurred by the Sovereign Grant in relation to the renovation of Frogmore Cottage, thus leaving the Crown with a greatly enhanced asset.”

Several royal properties are now empty. They include Buckingham Palace and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester’s former apartments at Kensington Palace. Others at St James’s Palace have been offered to Prince Andrew as a London crash pad.

[From The Sun & The Independent]

“The duke and duchess have paid for the expenditure incurred by the Sovereign Grant in relation to the renovation of Frogmore Cottage, thus leaving the Crown with a greatly enhanced asset.” The Windsors are tacky grifters and they’re all going to hell. Charles better cut Harry and Meghan a check for the full cost of what they put into that dilapidated shack. Charles is such an utterly dogsh-t father and grandfather, my god. Anyway, y’all know that William and Kate have always had their eye on Frogmore Cottage – it will be fascinating to see who moves in.

Photos courtesy of Netflix, Avalon Red, Backgrid and Cover Images.

Prince William became the Duke of Cornwall the moment his grandmother passed away and his father became king. With the Cornwall title comes the spoils: the Duchy of Cornwall is a billion-dollar real estate portfolio which operated as a straight-forward business when then-Prince Charles held the Cornwall title. I have believed for some time that Charles took pains to William-proof the Duchy so that the heir wouldn’t run the Duchy into the ground, and that William couldn’t loot the funds for his own harebrained schemes. Well, as part of the Windsors’ annual financial disclosures and Sovereign Grant reporting, we now know that William… doesn’t want to disclose much about what he’s doing with the Duchy money now that he’s got his hands on all of it. From The Independent:

Duchy money: Prince William received a private income from the Duchy of Cornwall of nearly £6 million this year, but was criticised for not publishing an annual report in his first year as heir to the throne. The Duchy generated record profits of £24.048 million in 2022-23 – up £1.02 million from £23.024 million the year before, a jump of about 4.5%, the estate’s own accounts showed. Usually William would be entitled to the full £24 million as his private income, but his finances have been complicated after he became heir to the throne half way through the financial year. The King, as the former Prince of Wales, was entitled to £11.275 million of the surplus before his accession, while William, who spent about six months of the last financial year as the Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales, to £12.773 million, Kensington Palace said.

No report this year: The annual figures were published on Thursday, in the same week William launched Homewards, his five-year drive to eradicate homelessness in six locations around the UK. As the Prince of Wales, Charles released a separate annual Clarence House review each year, detailing his broad income and expenditure of the Duchy money. But Kensington Palace said that the past year had been a transitional one following the death of the late Queen and as such they would not be releasing a report this year – William’s first as the heir apparent. “Their royal highnesses have been working through with their Duchy and household team their plans and priorities for the Duchy and the household in the years to come, and how these support their work and charitable priorities, such as The Royal Foundation and its programmes,” a Kensington Palace spokesman said. “And it’s why the household is not publishing a partial annual report.”

Graham Smith from the Republic chimes in: “William has some explaining to do because a change of monarch and heir is no excuse to row back on what little transparency there is. There is absolutely no reason why William’s household cannot provide a full set of accounts for this financial year. As the recipient of public funds from the state-owned Duchy he should be reporting his income and expenditure. As Duchy profits appear to be growing to a record £24m it’s time we demanded the return of the Duchies (of Cornwall and Lancaster) to the people and for revenue to be spent on local communities.”

William also received money from his father last year, before QEII died: William will also have received money from his father for the funding of his official duties and his private life when he was Duke of Cambridge for the first six months of the 2022-23 financial year. Charles’s bill for the activities of William, Kate and their family, and other costs including capital expenditure and transfer to reserve, was £4.38 million 2021-22. But the figure has not been disclosed this year, nor has any tax bill for Charles relating to the Duchy.

KP did disclose the gender & racial background of staff: Kensington Palace did disclose the gender balance of its staff for the first time – 64% female and 36% male. And it disclosed that William and Kate’s household is made up of 50 people, but a breakdown of their roles was not given. Some 16.3% of their staff are from an ethnic minority background, compared with 13.6% last year.

[From The Independent]

Okay, so I think I’m getting this right – basically, the Duchy of Cornwall had to do two sets of accounts, one for when Charles was the heir and one for when William became the heir. The Duchy itself is releasing information about what money went to Charles and what money went to William, but William will not do the same kind of disclosure as to how the Duchy-surplus money is spent by his office. Am I getting that right? While Charles would give the public a somewhat general audit of how his income was being spent, Kensington Palace will not do that this year, and William has zero commitment to doing those kinds of disclosures in the future. William is such a secret squirrel – he always has been. I’m also curious about KP’s fifty-person staff, which is now 16.3% ethnic minority…

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

I’m still reeling from the toxicity of the Sussex-Spotify breakup. It genuinely seems like Spotify leaked the split to the Wall Street Journal, forcing Archewell to rush out a confirmation of the end of the Sussexes’ contract, then Spotify’s executives ran a smear campaign on the Sussexes… all while saying nothing about their antivaxx golden goose, Joe Rogan, as Rogan made an ass out of himself within the very same newscycle. It was a lot. Now Us Weekly reports that the Sussexes are bothered by the “cheap shots” but they’ve got tons of other stuff in the pipeline.

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are ready to move forward after their Spotify deal fell through — but they aren’t too pleased with how news broke of their exit from the platform.

“Spotify was supposed to release a statement saying how great it was to work with Meghan, but they didn’t,” a source exclusively reveals in the new issue of Us Weekly, adding that the team behind the scenes “had been pushing Harry and Meghan for more content over the last year.”

According to the insider, the royal couple “weren’t delivering” on what Spotify needed before the deal came to an end earlier this month.

The Suits alum, 41, got word “a while ago” that her “Archetypes” podcast was being scrapped, a second source tells Us. (Spotify exec Bill Simmons later called out Meghan and Harry, 38, for being “f–king grifters” as the deal fell apart.)

“It seems to be one assault after another these days, with people lining up to take cheap shots at them,” the insider says. “Quite frankly, both she and Harry are sick and tired of it.”

Despite their deal ending in disappointment, the duo already have their sights set on a new chapter with “a ton of exciting things in the pipeline,” the second source adds. “[They’re] ready to come back stronger.”

[From Us Weekly]

Some of you have shared a theory that Spotify was actually trying to strike a new deal with the Sussexes, but Harry and Meghan wanted out, and they wanted to negotiate a new deal with Ari Emmanuel’s help. Some or all of that may be true – Spotify was definitely acting like your toxic ex who went around claiming that he dumped you. But I’m also sick of people lining up to take “cheap shots” at the Sussexes and I wish they would do more to combat this stuff. I get that they don’t want to answer every single unhinged story, but this was a different situation – Bill Simmons, a Spotify executive, was on the record calling them “f–king grifters.” They would have been well within their rights to clap back publicly and on the record.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Spotify.

The way it works is that Supreme Court hears their docket of cases for a whole session, then the session ends and the justices go off on their holidays and their decisions are released then. Clarence Thomas is probably sitting on a billionaire Republican donor’s yacht right now, fingering some Nazi memorabilia. Today, SCOTUS announced their decision in a pair of cases involving affirmative action in college admissions. The Supreme Court overturned the use of affirmative action. Congrats to American colleges and universities, you get to admit thousands of Beckys with bad grades, all while marginalizing the Black and brown kids who want to be doctors and scientists. As you would guess, Clarence Thomas, a shining beacon of affirmative-action employment, wrote the majority opinion dismantling affirmative action in colleges.

The Supreme Court on Thursday effectively overturned the use of affirmative action in college admissions policies, a practice that allows universities to consider a prospective student’s race along with factors such as academic merit, athletics, and extracurriculars. The court’s 6-3 ruling came after it heard arguments in a pair of challenges to affirmative action policies in place at the University of North Carolina and Harvard University.

ln its ruling, the court determined that race-conscious admissions violates the equal-protection clause under the U.S. constitution: “While this Court has recognized a ‘tradition of giving a degree of deference to a university’s academic decisions,’ it has made clear that deference must exist ‘within constitutionally prescribed limits.’ [The universities] have failed to present an exceedingly persuasive justification for separating students on the basis of race that is measurable and concrete enough to permit judicial review, as the Equal Protection Clause requires.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued, “Far from advancing the cause of improved race relations in our Nation, affirmative action highlights our racial differences with pernicious effect. In fact, recent history reveals a disturbing pattern: Affirmative action policies appear to have prolonged the asserted need for racial discrimination.”

Meanwhile, in a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited data showing that, “Racially integrated schools improve cross-racial understanding, ‘break down racial stereotypes,’ and ensure that students obtain ‘the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace . . . through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.’ ”

“More broadly, inclusive institutions that are ‘visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity’ instill public confidence in the ‘legitimacy’ and ‘integrity’ of those institutions and the diverse set of graduates that they cultivate,” Sotomayor added.

Long a tool used to to help remedy historical discrimination and create more diverse student populations, proponents have argued affirmative action helps increase opportunities to underrepresented groups, including people of color. Opponents argue that the practice unfairly strips white people of those same opportunities and amounts to racial discrimination.

[From People]

Imagine writing this with a straight face: “Affirmative action policies appear to have prolonged the asserted need for racial discrimination.” Clarence “Reverse Racism!” Thomas. Mr. Why Are You Being Racist To Becky With The Bad Grades??? While I’m sure a lot has changed since my college days, it feels like most universities and colleges genuinely want to keep their affirmative-action admissions policies in place – rarely were these cases about a college arguing that their policies were unfair, it was always about some wealthy white bigot crying that they can’t go to Harvard because of all of the “quota admissions.” I wonder if universities will find work-arounds in their admissions process, or if universities are just going to be for white kids exclusively now.

Wow. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent. pic.twitter.com/ica3ED6LZq

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) June 29, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Instar.

Angelina Jolie wrote a powerful essay about nurses & racial bias. [LaineyGossip]
Tom Hanks’ niece had a full meltdown on the show Claim to Fame. [Dlisted]
Hayley Atwell absolutely needs to fire her hair stylist. [RCFA]
Would you book the Barbie Dreamhouse Airbnb? [OMG Blog]
Cultural vandal David Zaslav is wrecking all of these beloved cultural institutions for nothing. I can’t even see how it’s being done for profit? [Pajiba]
Check out Naeem Khan’s resort line. [Go Fug Yourself]
Idris Elba & Archie Panjabi? I’m there. [Just Jared]
David Corenswet, before he was Superman. [Seriously OMG]
Really, so much of 2016 was a horrible fever-dream. [Jezebel]
April Love Geary is enjoying her vacation. [Egotastic]
Stories about people with Main Character Syndrome. [Buzzfeed]
Kevin Spacey is on trial this week in London. [Towleroad]

Prince William spent weeks hyping his big new pledge, his bid to “end homelessness” in five years. He gave on-the-record interviews. His staffers were sent out with grandiose quotes about how William is the savior of homeless people and he alone can solve this crisis. William organized a six-city tour to launch his big initiative, only Homewards should be renamed Flopwards, because this program is DOA. It’s a Classic William problem too – he’s only interested in the PR aspect and he compulsively overpromises and overhypes. Homewards would have been an okay project – the Royal Foundation giving away £3 million to help with housing for homeless people – if William hadn’t spent weeks telling everyone that this was the biggest, the best, the keenest, the most significant project ever. Flopwards was blasted by actual experts in the field, and Kensington Palace was on the backfoot immediately, huffily declaring that this was not a “PR stunt.”

Well, I simply cannot get enough of how badly this launch is going. William’s final stop of his six-city launch blitz was in Aberdeen, Scotland. Given all of the hype for Flopwards, surely William’s staff would have done the appropriate advance work to ensure that their primary royal would arrive in Aberdeen to a modest crowd? Not so much:

Prince William arrives in Tillydrone, Aberdeen as part of his tour of the UK discussing his Homewards campaign.

This is one of six locations chosen for the project hoping to ‘demonstrate it is possible to end homelessness’.@LBC | @LBCNews pic.twitter.com/bPNzw5vIdw

— Alan Zycinski (@AlanJZycinski) June 27, 2023

Enjoying that spotlight you demanded, Peg? He spent all of that time and all of those resources to push out the Sussexes and embiggen himself, and this is the result. To be fair – I have no idea why – but he did get some crowds in Belfast earlier in the day. But it looks like Aberdeen wasn’t buying it. Or it could be as I said – dogsh-t staff work. William and Kate do not surround themselves with competent, hard-working professionals. Because like attracts like, they’re staffed by dumbasses who allow their primary to walk into this kind of catastrophic photo-op. Meanwhile, the Scottish media outlet The National had this piece about the lack of engagement:

Did they not tell anyone he was coming? That would be one explanation for the complete absence of any Union flag-waving crowds of royalists during Prince William’s visit to Aberdeen on Wednesday. The number of journalists was far bigger than the number of people excited to see the noble Duke of Rothesay do some of the royals’ trademark walking about and nodding at stuff. In fact, two of those leaning on the fence – apparently put there to keep the baying mob away from his highness – seemed to be there by accident more than anything else. A “heya” and a nod was all William got from one of them. Isn’t Aberdeen meant to be one of the more pro-royal areas of Scotland?

Responding to clip of the missing crowds of adoring royalists, Bella Caledonia wrote: “Mass disinterest in Tillydrone as feudal relic masks their uselessness with performative social justice stunt …”

National columnist Gerry Hassan wrote: “Royal fever not exactly breaking out in Tillydrone, Aberdeen. If this was Harry and Meghan the right-wing press would be drooling about this on their front pages. I have no problem with the Prince of Wales taking homelessness as his cause … but either the PR department at the palace didn’t get the info out, or the crowd barriers were a teensy bit optimistic …” Peter Arnott added.

Another quipped: “Apathy reigns.” Unfortunately not. It’s still the Windsors.

[From The National]

Ouch. Between this and the massive republican demonstrations in Scotland during King Charles’s coronation, it genuinely feels like we’re going to see a Scexit at some point in our lifetimes.

Thank goodness there were crowd control barriers#WillyWashing pic.twitter.com/1g7Qktwwwx

— #NotMyKing (@NoKingCharlie) June 27, 2023

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Remember when the royal-rota hive-mind was trying to force a narrative about “Prince Harry and Meghan’s marriage is struggling, Harry stays at hotels and they party separately?” It was always a false narrative, but even more than that, it was projection. Whatever lie they’re pushing about the Sussexes, we can assume that they’re actually saying the truth about Prince William and Kate. There’s a growing body of evidence to suggest that William and Kate live separately and that William has disentangled himself from the Middletons in recent years. Does it follow that Will and Kate are on the brink of divorce? No – this is arguably the most aristocratic venture Kate has ever been apart of. Many couples of the British aristocracy live like this, with separate homes and separate lives, but staying together for the titles, the kids and for their reputations. But we’re still getting glimpses of William behaving like a divorced guy, including a boys’ night out with his bros last Friday, just hours after William was groped by his wife at Royal Ascot.

He’d spent most of Friday at Royal Ascot alongside his stunning wife Kate – but by the evening, Prince William was spotted enjoying himself at KOKO nightclub in Camden. Footage shows the Prince of Wales, 41, dressed in a light blue shirt, holding a beer and dancing from side to side while at the concert venue and former theatre in London.

Appearing in a private box alongside two friends, including Prince Louis’ godfather and nightclub owner Guy Pelly, the heir to the throne seemed relaxed while enjoying his Friday night at the electronic-themed evening.

Wearing an open collar blue shirt and clutching a drink, the father-of-three showed off his best moves by dad dancing on the balcony of the bar.

It comes after the heir cringed over his dancing at the coronation concert, joking to a fan that ‘dancing sober is always a bad idea’.

[From The Daily Mail]

Guy Pelly is married too, so this was probably billed as just a fun night out with two middle-aged husbands and fathers, a time to catch up and dance and drink. Maybe that’s all it was – maybe it was Guy Pelly telling William that they should go out and have a drink for William’s birthday last week. But it does feel like… something else. Also, for those critics who think I’m going overboard here, just imagine that Prince Harry had been seen out with a dude friend, drinking and dancing at a nightclub without Meghan. That would be THE story in the UK for weeks, there would be royal experts providing wall-to-wall commentary about how a Sussex divorce is in the cards. They already did all of that without any photos!!!

Prince William is spotted enjoying a night out at KOKO nightclub in Camden https://t.co/xqTc56CAn4

— Daily Mail Australia (@DailyMailAU) June 28, 2023

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

The Princess of Wales is actually “working,” you guys. I’m shocked! Back-to-back days where Kate is doing events! Don’t get too excited though – immediately after Wimbledon, Kate will probably be off for the summer, with nothing on her schedule until October. Let’s drink this in while we’re getting it. Yesterday, Kate attended the opening of Hope Street, a sort of privately-run alternative to jail. Today, Kate opened up the Young V&A. Let me explain – since 2018, Kate has been the patron of the Victoria & Albert Museum, commonly known as the V&A Museum. The V&A used to run the V&A Museum of Childhood, only now they’ve rebranded it as “The Young V&A” after a three-year, £13m renovation. The Young V&A is now reopening this summer.

I didn’t remember this dress, but it actually is a rewear. Kate wore this pink Beulah dress to the 2021 Wimbledon men’s final (Novak Djokovic beat Matteo Berrettini). It’s absolutely hilarious that she did back-to-back events on consecutive days and she repeated two dresses she had previously worn to Wimbledon. It’s also funny because I bet she shows up in all-new dresses to Wimbledon, which starts next week. Anyway, Kate has Wimbledon on the brain, that much is clear. Anyway, I dislike this dress! Pale pink is not her color, sadly. I wish she understood that she looks so much better in deeply saturated reds and yellows.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Embed from Getty Images

In the Wall Street Journal’s article about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex last weekend, WSJ buried an interesting detail in their negative, tabloid-like assessment of the Sussexes’ “flop.” WSJ noted that “News Corp’s Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, has a content partnership with Spotify’s Gimlet Media unit.” The same Gimlet Media unit which worked alongside the Archewell Audio team. Thus, it was the Gimlet team leaking all of that weird sh-t about the Sussexes, and the far-reaching empire of Rupert Murdoch was eager to disseminate every negative story about the Sussexes.

Speaking of, we now know that Murdoch’s empire has a connection to UTA – the Wall Street Journal is represented by UTA, and UTA’s CEO Jeremy Zimmer decided it was a good look to say, at Cannes Lions last week, that Meghan is talentless. The ol’ UTA-WSJ-Murdoch-Dow Jones-Gimlet connection, all working in concert to smear, insult and lie about the Sussexes. Well, as it turns out, Zimmer’s comments are being seen within the industry as incredibly unprofessional. Which is true – I’ve been shocked by the lack of professionalism across the board, not just with UTA’s CEO, but with Spotify saying nothing as their executive publicly trashed the Sussexes.

Pearls were clutched all over Hollywood on Monday in the wake of an unlikely press beef – United Talent Agency CEO Jeremy Zimmer and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. On a media spree at the Cannes Lions for the past week, Zimmer was asked about the recent meltdown of a $20 million multi-year deal Meghan and husband Prince Harry signed with Spotify in 2020. The pact produced a single series, “Archetypes,” which was not renewed. The termination of the deal was announced June 15.

“Turns out Meghan Markle was not a great audio talent, or necessarily any kind of talent,” Zimmer told Semafor at the marketing festival in the South of France. “And, you know, just because you’re famous doesn’t make you great at something.”

His comments were “mind-blowing,” according to one A-list talent manager who asked to remain anonymous. “As an agent, you never publicly discuss your own talent or anyone else’s.”

A top agent from a UTA competitor called Zimmer’s quote “a shocking display of bad taste. Who wants to sign with someone who trashes people like that in public?”

Indeed, the polished suits of the representation business treat their roles behind the scenes as virtue — so rarely stepping out in front that it’s a shock when they offer on-the-record defenses (as CAA’s Bryan Lourd did for his client Scarlett Johansson during her battle with Disney) or speak broadly about larger issues like discrimination (Endeavor CEO Ari Emanuel’s decrying of Kanye West’s antisemitism in 2022).

Zimmer’s Markle diss boiled over Monday afternoon, when the New York Post reported that the agency had pursued the formal senior royals as potential clients when they first moved to Los Angeles (an individual familiar with UTA said no meetings were ever scheduled or held with the Sussexes). In April, Meghan landed at a major talent house, signing with WME.

The Zimmer insider added that the CEO fielded relentless questions about Meghan and Spotify the day of his Semafor interview, as a lengthy Wall Street Journal piece about the Sussexes made its way around the world.

Taking the Sussexes out of the equation, another top dealmaker said “I don’t care who it is, decorum is decorum. I feel for the staff.” Variety spoke with three UTA agents on Monday, who declined to be named in this piece but admitted they were “embarrassed.”

[From Variety]

“…A shocking display of bad taste. Who wants to sign with someone who trashes people like that in public?” Exactly. Not only did Zimmer trash Meghan, he ONLY trashed Meghan. Not Harry. He trashed the woman who actually produced a very popular podcast, a podcast which won awards. There’s something about Meghan – gee, I wonder what?? – which makes so many of these white men lose their f–king grip on reality. Not only that, Zimmer’s comments look like sour grapes, given that UTA was trying to sign the Sussexes.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty, Cover Images, Instar.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Flash (@dctheflash)

The Flash had a disappointing opening weekend at the box office when it opened last week, grossing only $55 million domestically against a $200 million dollar budget. Now in the second week of its release, it’s dropped off even more. Since this movie and its parent studio, Warner Brothers, are completely cursed these days, I felt more than a little bit of Schadenfreude. They’re on track to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. Would the studio have been better off shoving the movie onto “Just Max” or not releasing it at all? Walk with me as we learn just how badly this movie tanked on its second weekend, courtesy of Coming Soon:

The Flash may end up losing Warner Bros. $200 million at the end of its box office run.

The new DC superhero movie starring Ezra Miller as Barry Allen/The Flash and Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman has premiered in theaters. During its opening weekend, it grossed an underwhelming $55 million at the domestic box office. In its second weekend, that dropped 72% to a mere $15.3 million, with some pundits already predicting this will be a box office bomb.

According to Luiz Fernando, the film is estimated to earn $280-310 million globally in its theatrical run. When pitted against The Flash’s $200-220 million production budget, $150 million in marketing, and the fact that studios don’t take all of their box office haul, the movie may lose $200 million for Warner Bros. Fernando believes they may have lost less money by releasing it on Max or not releasing it at all.

[From Coming Soon]

We been knew, as they say. Why WB released this film while canning Batgirl, I will never understand. Ezra Miller’s behavior has been heinous for years. The fact that David Zaslav didn’t see the writing on the wall after Miller was out there on a crime spree for months getting restraining orders and felony burglary charges… it just shows what a bad leader Zaslav is. In case anyone had any doubts. A combination of superhero and multiverse fatigue, overexposure of the character (The Flash TV show was on the CW forever!) and a deeply problematic star? That’s box office poison for sure. But these jokers asked for it, the second they took their bottom line more seriously than whatever crimes their star was committing.

To borrow a phrase from a band I loved in middle school, the only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on it. That’s exactly what Warner Brothers did. They bet on something that was sure to fail and what did it get them? I know the sunken cost fallacy is very hard to override psychologically, but if there were ever a time to cut one’s losses, it was with this movie. While we’re here I’d just like to say that Batgirl‘s star, Leslie Grace, is by all accounts a lovely young lady. Batgirl also cost about $90 million before marketing. I’m not a math genius, but some back-of-the-napkin calculations reveal that it would have been much easier to make back $90 million at the box office than $200 million with a disgraced star.

Photos via Instagram/WB and credit Avalon.red