Landman dropped a shocker in its first season finale when one of its main characters, and probably the biggest A-List star in the cast, was unceremoniously killed off out of nowhere. Clearly, the Taylor Sheridan drama is not especially sentimental about job security, which is fitting given where we left Tommy Norris at the end of the second season. But speaking of Tommy, could he be next for the chopping block? Will we see Landman without its landman?

According to Billy Bob Thornton, viewers probably don’t need to panic just yet. Speaking exclusively with Us Weekly at the Newport Beach TV Fest, sponsored by Visit Newport Beach, Thornton hinted that Sheridan is not planning to write Tommy out of Landman any time soon. “I think Taylor [Sheridan] is going to let me hang around,” Thornton said.

That should be reassuring for fans, especially after Landman made it clear that being a major cast member does not automatically mean being safe. Jon Hamm‘s exit as Monty Miller was a major turning point for the series, with Tommy taking over Monty’s role at M-Tex in Season 2. Since then, Tommy has branched out from the company, but he remains at the center of the show’s oil business drama, now with his son Cooper’s enterprise.

What Can We Expect from ‘Landman’ Season 3?

Thornton is confident of where he’s going to be for the next few years, but that’s not the case for everyone involved in the series. Ali Larter, who plays Angela, admitted that she does not know exactly where Sheridan is taking the story next.

“I really can’t even assume or try to guess what Taylor is going to imagine for Season 3. One thing I know is that to be able to get this far into our story lines, we all know each other. So the characters really understand what their dynamics are.”

Larter added that Sheridan will “just lean into that,” saying, “And I think what’s nice is that it’s not the first time. So when you’re going back down, it’s not the anxiety and the nervousness. You’ll get a little bit of the jitters, but to be able to go down and just do what we love [is wonderful].”

Andy Garcia was similarly open about putting his trust in Sheridan’s writing. “I’m in Taylor’s hands. I’m in it to win it. So, whatever he wants or has plans for me, I’m ready to execute,” Garcia said. “It all starts from the writing. He’s the writer — and he’s the storyteller — and I think he writes all the characters in a very specific way. They are very well-rounded, and the stories are intertwined in a way that’s very engaging, and he has a flair for the dramatic.” Garcia continued, “He also [has] an understanding of humanity and empathy, and he has an insight into relationships that are very keen. Whether it’s husband and wife, or father and daughter, or father and son, or in case maybe a businessman. It’s a privilege. When you have great writing, it’s always a privilege.”

Landman is streaming on Paramount+.

Advertisement

Release Date

Advertisement

November 17, 2024

Network

Paramount

Advertisement

Franchise(s)

Yellowstone

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Brooklyn Beckham is facing fresh backlash after appearing in a sponsored advert that many believe makes light of the very family feud that has dominated headlines for months. 

The social media clip, created in partnership with food delivery firm DoorDash, has sparked outrage among fans and reportedly left David and Victoria Beckham devastated. 

As criticism mounts, those close to the family say the latest move has deepened wounds that were already causing heartbreak behind closed doors.

Brooklyn Beckham found himself at the center of controversy after appearing in a sponsored social media video promoting DoorDash during the FIFA World Cup 2026. 

In the advert shared on Instagram, the 27-year-old smirked before telling viewers, “You’re probably wondering why I’m watching the FIFA World Cup 2026 from home… It’s a long story.”

Advertisement

The clip ended with the words “more soon,” leading many to believe additional adverts tied to the ongoing family fallout may be on the way. 

While the campaign was designed as a promotional partnership, many viewers interpreted it as a direct reference to Brooklyn’s estrangement from his famous family.

The reaction was swift. Critics flooded the comments section, accusing him of monetizing a deeply personal situation. One follower wrote, “If you hate them so much drop the name and stop profiting from association.”

Another added, “Seems very happy to still be profiting off the Beckham name.” Others questioned the intent behind the campaign. “You knew what you was doing with this commercial,” one commenter posted.

Advertisement

Another fan wrote, “Am I the only one who finds the irony in him doing this ad?” Additional responses included, “Desperate,” “This is so disturbing,” and “Cliff hanger.”

Brooklyn Faces Questions Over Hidden Messages

Beyond the dialogue itself, viewers began dissecting the advert’s details for what they believed were carefully placed symbols and hidden messages.

Critics argued that the campaign seemed designed to provoke discussion about his family situation. 

Fans pointed to several details in the video. One commenter noted, “The watch and camera.”

Observers also noted that Brooklyn Beckham appeared to have replaced the £250,000 ($335,480) Patek Philippe Nautilus watch that David had gifted him with another watch, prominently displayed on his coffee table. 

Advertisement

Others focused on a stack of unopened letters positioned nearby, interpreting them as a possible reference to his lack of communication with family members.

Brooklyn Beckham Leaves Friends Of David And Victoria Furious

According to friends of David and Victoria, the advert has left the family reeling. Sources close to the couple say they were shocked by the campaign and its apparent use of estrangement as a punchline.

Speaking to the Daily Mail, a family friend said, “To do an advert based on estrangement from family as if it’s a joke when his family is devastated and his sister and grandparents are inconsolable is shocking.”

The source also pointed to what they viewed as a contradiction between Brooklyn’s public messaging and his latest commercial venture, adding, “Especially from someone who claims he wants peace and privacy.”

That criticism stems from Brooklyn’s six-page statement released in January, in which he denounced “Brand Beckham” and accused his family of prioritizing image and publicity. 

Advertisement

In that statement, he insisted, “All we want is peace, privacy and happiness for us and our future family.”

Brooklyn’s Family Dispute Deepened After Harper’s Visit 

The advert arrived just days after another painful chapter in the feud involving Brooklyn Beckham’s younger sister Harper.

Only days earlier, the 14-year-old reportedly visited the Beverly Hills home Brooklyn shares with Nicola Peltz carrying a handwritten note. However, she was disappointed to discover her brother was not home.

Soon afterward, representatives for Brooklyn and Peltz accused the Beckhams of “using Harper as a pawn.” Their camp questioned the circumstances surrounding the visit, telling the Daily Mail, “[The fact] that photographers were in place as the letter was hand delivered says it all – this was choreographed for the cameras.”

Friends of David and Victoria strongly rejected the accusation. “It is incredibly sad that this horrible accusation is being levelled at an innocent young girl who just desperately misses her brother,” one insider said.

Advertisement

They added, “Nothing needed to be said at all so to invent this nasty accusation is really unnecessary.” 

Sources also claimed that Brooklyn has not accepted contact from Harper or his grandparents since the falling-out.

Brooklyn Beckham’s Family Rift Continues To Grow

The latest dispute comes against the backdrop of a family relationship that has steadily deteriorated over the past year. 

Brooklyn and Peltz reportedly failed to attend David’s 50th birthday celebrations in May 2025, a moment many insiders viewed as a major turning point.

Shortly before Christmas, Brooklyn blocked his parents on Instagram. Later, lawyers representing the media personality and his wife reportedly requested that all communication with the Beckhams be handled through legal representatives.

Advertisement

To make matters worse, Brooklyn also accused his parents of controlling him for much of his life, attempting to damage his relationship with Peltz, and embarrassing him during his wedding. 

According to him, Victoria canceled plans to make his wife’s wedding gown. Brooklyn also alleged that David refused to meet with him unless Peltz was excluded.

Meanwhile, David has repeatedly declined to discuss the feud publicly. When asked recently about the impact of months of headlines surrounding the dispute, he told Variety, “To be honest, I’m sorry to stop you there, but that’s a private matter. That’s the one thing that I don’t want to talk about.”

Advertisement

As far as adaptations go, Game of Thrones was arguably one of the best we’ve ever seen. However, the final seasons were steeped heavily in controversy with regard to how the story was tied up on screen. Despite its conclusion, the performances delivered by characters such as Kit Harrington as Jon Snow, Maisie Williams as Arya, and Sophie Turner as Sansa for House Stark and the Lannister brood in ​​​​​​​Peter Dinklage‘s Tyrion, ​​​​​​​Lena Headey‘s Cersei, and ​​​​​​​Charles Dance‘s Tywin, among others, made for entertaining and captivating viewing for a large portion of the show.

Since the conclusion of Game of Thrones, some of the damage to the franchise inflicted by the final seasons of the original show has been clawed back by prequels like House of the Dragon and A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms. The first prequel brings with it dragons and mayhem, leaning heavily into one of the most catastrophic conflicts in Westeros history — the Dance of the Dragons. On the other hand, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms does the opposite, opting more for a laid-back feel, as fans navigate the formative years of two of the greatest figures in Targaryen history — Ser Duncan the Tall (Peter Claffey) and Prince Aegon Targaryen (Dexter Sol Ansell), who ultimately become King Aegon V Targaryen.

With Season 3 of House of the Dragon right around the corner, and talk of other proposed projects swirling around. It would be understandable if a fan of the franchise misses one of the more promising new Game of Thrones releases scheduled for this year, which gives you the power to alter the very history of Westeros itself. Planned to release before the end of 2026, Game of Thrones: War For Westeros is currently set to upset the delicate balance of power. Focused on the series of epic, bloody battles within the story, it is a classic real-time strategy game that brings to life the most iconic battles from the history of Westeros. Regarding what to expect, War For Westeros, which is developed and published by Playside, is in the same vein as the Total War strategy game series.

‘War For Westeros’ Lets You Alter the History of Westeros

Besides the onscreen production, there have also been multiple games, such as Game of Thrones: Dragonfire, which returns fans of the franchise back to Westeros and the Free Cities. However, War For Westeros is poised to set itself apart as it offers its players the chance to curate the very ending they want to the story. Introducing the game, Playside called it a “classic real-time strategy in the world of Westeros,“ which allows you to lead the armies of House Stark, Lannister, and Targaryen, as you “conquer the Seven Kingdoms solo, or in treacherous free-for-all multiplayer.” Each faction has its own heroes, abilities, and mechanics, which would offer strengths to lean into or weaknesses to guard against. There is even an opportunity to take control of the Night King himself and lead his army of the dead, which sounds both sweet and ominous. However, the game’s biggest selling point, as highlighted by Playside, is the ability to “rewrite the fate of the realm“, and that, my friends, is pretty sweet.

War For Westeros was first announced at Summer Game Fest 2025, and 2026 very much remains the official target year for its release.

By Chris Snellgrove
| Updated 17 seconds ago

If we’re being honest, Netflix doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to original productions. Sometimes, they create quirky hits that become pop culture touchstones (like Wednesday). Other times, they create crappy action pablum (like The Gray Man). Most of the time, though, they create the worst romantic comedies to ever haunt our televisions (wait, you have how many Kissing Booth movies?!). With that being said, I was nervous that Apex, a Netflix original about a rugged widow being hunted through equally rugged parts of the Australian wilderness.

Still, I checked it out because Apex had several things in its favor. First, its hard R-rating promised that this cinematic showdown would be just as brutal and bloody as I could hope for. Second, much of the film was shot on location in the most stunning locations of Australia, meaning the movie would be a visual feast. Finally, the cast was fascinating: this is a film where Charlize Theron (best known for playing Furiosa in Mad Max: Fury Road) had to fight for her life against Taron Egerton (best known for playing 007-esque Egge in Kingsman: The Secret Service). To my astonishment, the movie lived up to my expectations, delivering an edge-of-your-seat thriller that will leave you gasping at every turn.

Between A Rock And A Hard Place

The premise of Apex is that a woman (Charlize Theron) who loses her husband (Eric Bana) in a freak mountain climbing accident is just trying to enjoy some whitewater rafting in Australia. Unfortunately, the first seeming good guy she runs into (Taron Egerton) turns out to be a lunatic who wants to kill and eat her. He’s an experienced predator, one who enjoys turning the hunt for prey into a sick, prolonged game. When he finally meets his match with a Player 2 as resourceful as he is, though, it’s anybody’s guess as to who will win, or if Game Over is coming for them both.

One of the greatest strengths of Apex is that it was shot in Australia, creating an aesthetic that genuinely pulls the film together. Much of the movie focuses on the main character’s love of extreme sports, and getting to see every rapid she navigates, and every cliff she climbs is a constant reminder that danger is all around her. That’s the perfect complement to the ferocity of Egerton’s character: soon enough, it’s clear that he’s not an animalistic man so much as a beast wearing a man’s body. He’s a predator at home in his natural, unforgiving habitat. Additionally, the movie is pure travel porn, with one jaw-dropping natural vista after another.

Terror That Just Keeps Climbing

Charlize Theron is, unsurprisingly, amazing in Apex. While the “man hunts woman” premise of the movie may make you think of exploitation films, Theron’s character is no victim. She’s smart, resourceful, and downright nasty when she needs to be. In this way, the movie’s vibes are more Revenge than, say, The Last House on the Left. It helps that she has so much natural chemistry with Egerton; more, arguably, than she had with Tom Hardy in Mad Max: Fury Road. Here, we have a tough, Furiosa-lite character whose burning rage is tempered by a tragic backstory and just the right amount of quirky humor.

However, the real revelation in this movie was Taron Egerton. Like many, I only really knew him as the lead character in Kingsman: The Secret Service, where he played a quippy, raunchy secret agent. Honestly, I didn’t think he had it in him to play a leading villain in any movie, especially one where he’s paired with a cinematic powerhouse like Charlize Theron. But he is absolutely riveting in Apex, finding new ways to shock the viewer at every turn. He absolutely oozes menace and raw, ravenous power in every scene. The movie takes its cues from his wild, unhinged energy, and Egerton transforms Apex into the most terrifying thriller of the year.

Of Monsters And Men

Incidentally, “unhinged energy” is the vibe of Apex in almost every single frame. Pitting two blockbuster action stars against each other is inspired, and Theron and Egerton add visceral brutality to their every fight. But instead of unfolding as a serious clash of the titans, the movie takes occasional detours for weird humor, including a couple of truly bizarre needle drops (you’ll never look at the Chemical Brothers the same way again!). Throw in a bonkers backstory for Theron and a screamworthy teeth reveal from Egerton, and you have a movie as endlessly weird as it is relentlessly paced.

Apex has a few flaws that keep it from reaching the cinematic summit. First, the fact that it focuses almost entirely on Charlize Theron and Taron Egerton is a double-edged sword. Personally, I thought they were fantastic, elevating what could have been a fairly mundane survival thriller. But if you dislike the actors or their (often insane) performance choices, this movie will disappoint. Similarly, it’s filled with plenty of heartpounding chase scenes and bloody fight scenes that I found awesome. If they don’t work for you, though, Apex is going to feel like more of a slog than, well, actual mountain climbing.

So, is it worth taking your own streaming trip up this particular mountain? Apex is currently streaming on Netflix, meaning that you are just one click away from seeing who would win in a fight between Furiosa and James Bond, Jr. Is that an insane concept? Correct. Are Netflix originals mostly soulless trash? Also correct. Fortunately, this movie has amazing performances, luscious outdoor photography, and action scenes sure to leave you on the edge of your seat. Are you looking for gloriously greasy schlock to help soak up a few weekend beers? Good news, buddy: thanks to Apex, there ain’t no other mountain high enough!

Michael Jackson’s former wife Debbie Rowe is making headlines again after a rare public appearance in California. 

More than two decades after her divorce from the late music icon, Rowe was spotted during a low-key outing that quickly drew attention from fans. 

The sighting comes amid renewed interest in Jackson’s life following the success of the biopic “Michael” and has sparked fresh discussion about Rowe’s unusual role in the singer’s world, her relationship with their children, and the regrets she has expressed since his death.

Debbie Rowe was photographed during a low-key outing in Palmdale, California, where she stopped at a local bank while running errands. 

Photos obtained by the Daily Mail showed the former nurse looking noticeably different from the woman who frequently made headlines during her brief marriage to Michael Jackson in the late 1990s.

Dressed casually in a graphic T-shirt that read “Horses make me feel less murdery,” flared cargo jeans, beige moccasins, and a luxury watch, Rowe kept a low profile. 

Her blonde hair now features gray strands, and she appeared makeup-free during the outing. 

The appearance comes years after Rowe battled breast cancer and more than two decades after her divorce from Jackson ended her short-lived time in the public eye.

Jackson And Rowe’s Unusual Relationship

Rowe first met Michael Jackson while working as a nurse for his dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein, during the 1980s. Their friendship reportedly deepened following the King of pop’s divorce from Lisa Marie Presley in 1996.

Speaking in the documentary “The Michael Jackson Interview: The Footage You Were Never Meant To See,” Rowe recalled offering to help Jackson become a father.

“I said, ‘Let me do this. I want to do this. You’ve been so good to me,’” the 67-year-old said, adding, “I could do something for him and this is what I could do.”

The pair married in Australia in November 1996 after Jackson’s divorce from Presley was finalized. Their first child known as Prince, arrived in February 1997. Daughter Paris followed in April 1998.

The marriage was short-lived. Rowe filed for divorce in October 1999, citing irreconcilable differences. 

Jackson’s spokesperson later said the duo had “mutually agreed to end their marriage” and would “remain friends.” Their divorce was finalized in 2000.

Michael Jackson’s Children Remained At The Center Of Attention

Following the divorce, Debbie Rowe received approximately $8 million and a Beverly Hills home under the terms of her prenuptial agreement.

In 2001, she made the difficult decision to relinquish custody of Prince and Paris to Jackson. During court proceedings, she emphasized that the move did not reflect a lack of love for her children.

“I do. I think they are adorable. They’re his kids. They’re his kids. They are not my kids,” she said. After Jackson faced child abuse allegations in 2003, Rowe later sought to restore her parental rights. The “Billy Jean” singer denied all accusations and was ultimately acquitted.

Over the years, Rowe gradually rebuilt a relationship with daughter Paris. The singer-songwriter has described their connection as unconventional but meaningful.

“It’s just cool having her as a friend,” Paris said on the “Red Table Talk Show,” further noting, “It’s very chill – which I love – it’s the perfect word to describe it.”

Paris has also spoken about discovering similarities with her mother and often shares her musical projects with her.

Jackson’s Death Still Haunts Rowe

Years after Michael Jackson’s death in 2009, Debbie Rowe made an emotional confession about her lingering guilt regarding his struggles with addiction.

In the documentary “Who Really Killed Michael Jackson,” she broke down while reflecting on the singer’s dependence on prescription medication.

“I should have done something and I didn’t. There are a number of people that died from addictions and in some way I was part of it,” Rowe admitted.

She specifically pointed to her former employer, Dr. Arnold Klein, claiming he provided Jackson with powerful medications and cosmetic treatments. 

“I was basically as bad as him [Klein] and I am so sorry I participated in it,” she said.

Sadly, the music icon died following a drug-induced cardiac arrest at age 50. His physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, was later convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Michael Jackson’s Legacy Continues To Spark Debate

Even years after his death, Jackson remains one of the most discussed figures in entertainment history. 

His legacy faced renewed scrutiny following HBO’s “Leaving Neverland,” which focused on allegations made by Wade Robson and James Safechuck. 

The accusations echoed rumors that had followed Jackson since the 1990s, though he was acquitted of criminal charges in 2005.

Those controversies were notably absent from the recent blockbuster biopic “Michael,” which concluded before the allegations first surfaced publicly.

The film went on to become the highest-grossing biopic of all time, introducing Jackson’s story to a new generation of fans.

Life as a young pop star looked glamorous from the outside, but Jessica Simpson says the reality was far more complicated.

During a recent concert appearance, the singer reflected on the expectations placed on her as a teenager entering the music industry.

Decades later, she is opening up about the pressure to fit a specific image, the self-doubt that followed, and how she eventually found her own voice.

While performing in Pennsylvania, Jessica Simpson shared memories from the beginning of her music career and the expectations she faced after signing with Columbia Records.

The singer explained that record executives saw her as the next big pop star and expected her to follow a path already established by two of the biggest names in music.

“When I first started singing, I was, to everyone at the record label, supposed to be this pop star. There was Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera… and I had to follow in their footsteps,” Simpson told the audience per Us Weekly.

What began as excitement about a recording contract soon came with demands that had little to do with her voice.

“I really thought I was signed just because of my voice, then it was like, ‘OK, you need to lose 15 lbs,’” she recalled.

Simpson was only 17 years old at the time and said she weighed 115 pounds when she received that instruction.

The Pressure To Become Someone Else

Looking back, Jessica Simpson described how the expectations continued to grow as her career developed.

“The second record, I [was told I] needed to have a six-pack, which was definitely not going to happen. I’m just not built that way, you know?” she said.

The constant pressure to meet an image created by others left a lasting impact on her confidence.

“There were just all these things that I had to be to be ‘Jessica Simpson,’ or the version of ‘Jessica Simpson’ they believed I should be to be successful. I always felt like a failure, like, I was never good enough.”

Her comments offered a glimpse into the challenges many young artists faced during the height of the late-1990s and early-2000s pop boom, when appearance often became just as important as talent.

For Simpson, those years were marked by a struggle to balance her own identity with the version of herself others wanted to sell.

Jessica Simpson Reflects On Competing With Pop Giants

The singer has spoken about these challenges before. In a March 2025 interview with Rolling Stone, she revisited the difficult reality of trying to break through while Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera dominated the charts.

“I was never gonna win because I had someone like Britney [Spears] and Christina [Aguilera] ahead of me, who were selling so many more records,” she admitted.

Simpson also revealed that many aspects of the traditional pop-star image never felt natural to her.

She confessed, “I didn’t want to dance, I didn’t want to wear a head mic.”

Despite her reservations, she felt obligated to meet the expectations of the people backing her career.

“But I agreed to do it, because I worked for Sony, and I didn’t want to let them down, and I felt like I was constantly letting people down. Even myself probably, because I wasn’t singing words I wrote.”

Those feelings eventually pushed her toward creating music that reflected her own experiences rather than trying to fit into an existing formula.

Finding Success On Her Own Terms

A major turning point came when Jessica Simpson began taking greater control of her music.

Instead of chasing trends or attempting to mirror other performers, she focused on material that felt more personal. That shift helped lead to one of the biggest moments of her recording career.

Her 2004 hit “With You” became her first chart-topping single and remains one of the songs most closely associated with her career.

The success reinforced something Simpson had been searching for since her teenage years: proof that she could succeed while staying true to herself.

Today, she continues to perform and release music while embracing a more authentic approach to her artistry.

Jessica Simpson Embraces A New Chapter

The singer also used her recent concert to celebrate where she is now in life.

She shared, “It feels good to be back on stage in my 40s. I missed all of my 30s, so this really to me, feels like I’m me again. I feel like walking on stage is almost more comfortable than my living room at home, and it’s such a beautiful feeling.”

Her latest music has been shaped by major personal changes, including her split from former NFL player Eric Johnson.

The pair share three children: Maxwell, Birdie, and Ace. Simpson announced their separation in January 2025 after months of speculation.

At the time, she said, “Eric and I have been living separately, navigating a painful situation in our marriage.”

Before confirming the breakup, she had already hinted at a new phase in her life through social media posts promoting fresh music.

She said at the time, “Interviews in my Nashville music room where I unearthed my singular magic.”

She later added, “This comeback is personal. It’s an apology to myself for putting up with everything I did not deserve.”

For Simpson, the journey from insecure teenager to confident performer has not been easy. But years after being told who she should be, she appears more comfortable than ever embracing exactly who she is.

By Jennifer Asencio
| Updated 35 seconds ago

Actor and debatable comedian Seth Rogen recently reaffirmed his lifestyle, which he describes as “child-free.” A 2023 interview with Kelly Clarkson has resurfaced in which the actor talked about how happy he and his wife, Lauren Miller, are without having had children.

It’s not that Rogen is unfamiliar with the challenges of raising children. At 40 when he gave the interview, he pointed out that most of his peers are parents, so he’s had a lot of exposure to the idea. But he and Miller find that they can develop their careers and themselves in ways that having children does not facilitate for them. The couple has opted to remain childless by choice.

DINK, Defined

Rogen is an infamous goofball, and it’s probably a good idea that he not procreate, especially after Animal Farm. He makes some good points about what being childless can do for an adult, including hinting at the idea that some people should not be parents. He made it very clear that he’d rather work on himself than on raising a child, and, although the two ideas are not mutually exclusive (many of us who are parents have grown because we had children), someone whose focus is more on themselves than their progeny shouldn’t be raising children anyway. At least he accepts that.

However, he makes being childless sound like paradise when he claims that having kids seems like it wouldn’t be fun or that he and Miller are doing things with their lives that they wouldn’t be able to do with children. These days, it is perfectly acceptable not to want children; there is no imperative to keep the species alive or even to maintain the family line. Glorifying childlessness goes too far, though.

Rogen is hardly unique. There is an entire online community of so-called “DINKs,” which stands for “dual income, no kids.” These are adults who have chosen not to have children so they can enjoy expensive vacations and lifestyles without the responsibility or commitment of raising children. Many of these couples are driven by women who are more interested in careers than family, as well as the recent movement that has made terminating one’s pregnancy into a political statement about bodily autonomy.

Conflating Two Different Mindsets

In some ways, Rogen and other DINKs have a point: dragging kids around on vacations or managing them alongside a career is very, very difficult. These days, a dual income is almost a requirement, even for childless couples, to ensure the bills get paid, which emphasizes this juggling act even more. Kids require sick days, have temper tantrums, and might keep you up all night before a big meeting because the Boogeyman is hiding under their bed. They are dirty, messy, and unregulated. It’s okay not to want children. It’s even okay to admit that the reason you don’t want children is that you’d rather keep your time and assets for yourself.

What’s not okay is judging other people when they do have kids. Rogen objects to people expecting him to have children, which is a fair point. Often, we socially do expect couples to reproduce as if that’s the only point of being a couple (and forget about you if you can’t have kids at all!). Many people are perplexed by couples who choose not to have children and continue their family line, and the pressure on couples to have children is immense and personal, coming from family and friends.

But Rogen’s observation that “it doesn’t seem that fun…” and his statement that “People describe having kids as brief glimmering moments of beauty amongst a sea of pain. Whereas not having kids, it’s just lovely all the time,” are both statements made by someone who obviously has no idea what raising children is like. I don’t know who describes having children the way Rogen claims, but raising kids is a timeline of novelties and pleasures that last a lifetime. Playing with one’s kids is not only fun but also gives parents a chance to pass down hobbies and share pastimes (my son and I play Dungeons & Dragons together, and I learned how to play from my mother).

Getting to know one’s children is also a remarkable experience that cannot be matched or understood by DINKs and shouldn’t be written off as a hardship. On some occasions, personalities may clash, but for the most part, one’s children are as much their friends as they are their charges, and doing things with friends is also fun.

Thinking In Terms Of Transaction

Rogen was also dismissive of the idea that children will eventually “take care” of their parents, claiming that it was selfish to expect that. These days, many elderly people are choosing to age in place, in their own homes rather than those of their children. Many elderly are living active lives that separate them from their children socially. Being taken care of as an elderly parent doesn’t always mean living with a free caregiver who is working off a DNA debt. Just hanging out with one’s adult children is rewarding and fulfilling when one has a relationship with them. The affection that is built between parent and child also moves many children to participate in their parents’ care organically, without being forced by expectations.

Rogen really summed up his lack of parental fitness in an exchange with Clarkson in which she said, “People with kids, that’s what we call ‘me time.’ You have to carve it out.” Rogen replied, “All the time is me. Why wouldn’t it be me time?!” While he considers the idea of having kids to “take care of you when you’re old” selfish, he admitted openly that he does not feel capable of putting time into anyone other than himself and his own pursuits of both business and pleasure.

There are a lot of good reasons to have children, and a lot of good reasons not to. Some people just shouldn’t have children because they themselves are ill-equipped to be parents, like Rogen is. These are personal choices between the couples involved. But Rogen’s derision of parents is an example of the very judgment he complains about facing as a childless couple with Miller, even as an equal and opposite response, and especially because it comes from a place of ignorance that he frames as popular opinion.

Unfortunately, people will listen to Rogen, as social media is filled with people applauding his choice and justifying their own decisions not to have children or disillusionment with becoming parents. This is yet another example of celebrities needing to stick to entertaining us rather than sharing their opinions.