By Joshua Tyler
| Published 47 seconds ago

In the early twenty-teens, Hollywood was flying high off a decade of cinematic successes. The future had never been brighter, and the plan was to just keep delivering more of the same.

The decade of huge wins had started with the massive masterpiece success of The Lord of the Rings, when the trilogy released its first movie in 2001. It made sense that the best way to kick off the next decade was to do a lot more of that.

So the greedy ghouls behind the scenes in Tinseltown began plotting a way to bring Lord of the Rings back. They went to the man who’d made it all happen, director Peter Jackson, and poured on the pressure. Eventually, Jackson relented and gave them what they wanted, but only by refusing to compromise the world he created. He gave them more, but he did it his way, under tremendous ever-mounting pressure.

When it was all done, everyone dismissed his work as a failure and sent him off to the Gray Havens. We were all so, so terribly wrong.

This is why The Hobbit Trilogy failed.

Peter Jackson Resists Hollywood’s Greed

When Hollywood began demanding more Lord of the Rings, he resisted. Jackson knew he’d created absolute perfection with the LOTR trilogy, and matching that would be nearly impossible. Probably, he was also just tired, having spent so much of his life already living in Tolkien’s Middle-earth.

Eventually, he relented and signed on to produce The Hobbit, but he still pushed back against doing all the day-to-day work, so he started lining up other directors to take over, hiring Guillermo del Toro to helm a two-movie version of The Hobbit. Unfortunately, repeated delays caused del Toro to exit.

Facing tight deadlines, the studio turned to Jackson, who finally relented and stepped in as director with little to no prep time at all before he had to start shooting one of the most important movies in the world. To make matters worse, the studio then pressured Jackson into making The Hobbit three movies, when most fans already thought two movies was far, far too excessive. 

It was excessive because, in book form, as written by JRR Tolkien, The Hobbit is a more straightforward, shorter adventure story than The Lord of the Rings. It’s focused on a single group of characters as they go on a quest to slay a dragon. It’s easy to see how you could divide it into two movies, but there isn’t enough material there for three. There just isn’t. 

For Jackson, being forced into three Hobbit films must have felt like the height of irony. With The Lord of the Rings he had to fight desperately to get Hollywood to let him plan it as three movies instead of one or two. Now, spoiled by his success with making three, they pressured him into making more movies than he wanted.

Unlike The Lord of the Rings, which was created out of Peter Jackson’s total passion for Tolkien’s stories, The Hobbit was a project driven by Hollywood greed.  It almost felt as if the only reason Jackson stepped up to direct at all was to save Tolkien’s world from the disaster Hollywood was trying to make out of it. 

The Hobbit Trilogy Should Have Been A Disaster

Given the realities under which The Hobbit went into production, it had no business NOT being a total disaster. That’s what it should have been; that’s what always happens when Hollywood forces a prequel that has no business existing.

And yet… 

With the fate of Middle Earth hanging in the balance, a weary Peter Jackson moved forward, determined to save the world he’d created from Hollywood’s greed. He pulled in ancillary material from other Tolkien sources, expanded scenes only hinted at in The Hobbit, and came up with enough script for three movies. 

As it begins, the first movie in The Hobbit trilogy sticks closely to the book’s format, with a Hobbit living in a cozy Hobbit hole that’s invaded by a grumpy wizard and a bunch of hungry dwarves demanding dinner. It’s glorious, it feels perfect.

Every inch of the Hobbit hole, Bag End, is lovingly crafted. The dwarves are both hilarious and sad. Gandalf is looming and omnipresent. Martin Freeman is perfect as a young Bilbo, put upon, confused, and unwilling to admit that he’s intrigued by the possibility of an adventure.

As they often did in JRR Tolkien’s books, the dwarves begin singing a brave and mournful song about the place they’re going, their former home, Erebor, the Lonely Mountain. The haunting melody of their song becomes the musical theme of the entire series, and it’s maybe even better than the amazing score of The Lord of the Rings movies, as it carries thirteen dwarves, a hobbit, and a mysterious gray wizard out of Bag End, across middle Earth on an adventure to free the Dwarven leader Thorin’s kingdom from a murderous dragon.

The Artistry And Beauty Of The Lord Of The Rings Is Present In The Hobbit

All the artistry and beauty of the original Lord of the Rings movies is here and only added to. No role was recast, Ian McKellan returns as Gandalf, and we arguably get more of him than even in The Lord of the Rings. Orlando Bloom and others return, too, but not gratuitously, only when it makes sense for the plot and adds to the story. 

The first movie ends with Bilbo reading riddles in the dark, and the scene is a masterclass in conveying darkness while still letting the audience see what’s going on. It’s a skill that modern Hollywood seems to have totally forgotten. Bilbo’s riddles in the dark with Gollum is a good endpoint for the film, with our heroes narrowly escaping the clutches of goblins and going on the run.

The escape from goblin kingdom is one of the weakest points in The Hobbit movies. It relies too much on CGI, it’s too chaotic and difficult to follow, and it’s not the finale for the first chapter that many might have wanted.

Given the constraints Jackson was working with, especially the pressure he was under to get this first movie out, you have to wonder if that sequence was really what he wanted to do himself. Because that chaotic goblin scene never becomes a pattern. There’s never another confusing, distractingly CGI moment in the rest of the series, or at least not anywhere that matters. 

Sure, The Hobbit movies use more green screen and CGI than Lord of the Rings, but not nearly as much as pretty much every other Hollywood movie does. Jackson still built sets, and you feel the weight of real things being interacted with in every frame of the film.

The second Hobbit movie, The Desolation of Smaug, might be the best. The dragon is reached, battled, and sent screaming from the depths of Erebor. Martin Freeman shines as Bilbo, engaged in another battle of wits with a malevolent force, this time one that breathes fire. Thorin’s complexity only grows.

Don’t come at me about the barrel riding scene. It’s not errible. It’s fun, really fun, and it’s something the series sets up by showing us the dexterity and skill of the dwarves in the first film’s opening moments. 

The third movie, The Battle of the Five Armies, is the biggest departure. The book itself is almost two books. The first half of it is the quest of some Dwarves and a Hobbit to get to the mountain and slay the dragon. The second half is a gigantic battle between kings and orcs for supremacy in this part of Middle-earth.

The third movie covers that second half, which means largely sidelining most of the characters we’ve gotten to know over the first movie. Still, it brings it back to them in the end, and feels like a completed story. A real adventure. One that sticks with you, long after the credits roll.

The Hobbit Is Filmmaking At A Level Hollywood Is No Longer Capable Of

The level of quality and care established by the first film continues over all three, and matched against modern filmmaking, The Hobbit trilogy is like rediscovering Atlantis, a forgotten world of high-level storytelling that it doesn’t seem like anyone knows how to do anymore. 

At the time it was released, we were spoiled. We didn’t understand what we were experiencing. Sure, there are minor missteps and the nature of the story is different than The Lord of the Rings. Our heroes are less clearly heroic; Thorin Oakenshield, in particular, is a complex leader who makes many big mistakes, and Dwarves in general are hard to like, by design.

Those minor quibbles aside, The Hobbit trilogy is nearly as big, grand, and beautiful as its cinematic predecessor. 

Instead of celebrating the film’s incredible achievement against all odds, people nitpicked over a few dodgy green screen moments and compared it to The Lord of the Rings, which may be the greatest movie trilogy ever made, and up against which literally any movie would be found inadequate and wanting.

Looked at now through the wreckage of the unending mediocrity of modern movies, it must be said that: Holy hell, The Hobbit movies are actually really, really good. 

The Hobbit Trilogy Was A Box Office Mega-Hit

The Hobbit trilogy made a lot of money. An Unexpected Journey (2012) opened strong and rode holiday legs to about $1.02 billion worldwide. The Desolation of Smaug (2013) dipped slightly to roughly $959 million, still massive, still a global event. The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) closed things out at around $956 million, proving fatigue hadn’t killed demand. Combined, the trilogy pulled in just under $3 billion worldwide. Less than The Lord of the Rings, but way more than anything in theaters in the last few years.

Critics liked the first one, but reviews began to sour as the trilogy went on. And audiences began to lose patience, too, as The Hobbit trilogy began being labeled a desperate cash-in, a movie series squandering the goodwill created by the absolute goddamn triumph of The Lord of the Rings movies.

Why The Hobbit Failed

Despite its success, The Hobbit movies are now talked about as if they’re hated. Like critics, audiences grew increasingly lukewarm toward the movies as they watched them. Now it’s viewed as a failure, despite its financial success.

We were wrong. We were all wrong. We were all lost in the midst of a never-ending cinematic summer and had no idea that the creative winter we’re in now would soon come.

Peter Jackson basically stopped making movies after The Hobbit trilogy. His long-time collaborator, a cinematographer, Andrew Lesnie, died shortly after they finished releasing The Hobbit movies, and Peter has admitted that his heart just wasn’t in it anymore after that. 

Jackson says, “I realize that I’ve avoided doing drama films because I’d have to work with someone else who isn’t Andrew, and I think his death changed my creative path.”

We Owe Peter Jackson A Debt

When you read other things Jackson has said about the making of The Hobbit, I think it’s more than that sadness over the death of his friend. I think he simply gave all he had to give, and he had nothing left.

Peter Jackson gave it all to salvage The Hobbit from the wreckage Hollywood was creating out of it, in an era where the movie industry was already beginning to embrace anti-merit inclusivity practices and shifting its focus toward identity over quality storytelling. 

If you look at photos of Peter Jackson making The Lord of the Rings, he looks like a hobbit himself. A husky, smiling man with tousled hair and tousled clothes, he looked like he’d be right at home dancing with Rosie in the Shire. 

By the time The Hobbit trilogy was over, Peter Jackson had become a drained, lifeless husk of his former self. As if he’d had all the energy sucked out of his body by the forces of Mordor. As if he’d been carrying The One Ring up Mount Doom, all by himself.

Everything Jackson had left after already nearly destroying himself to make The Lord of the Rings went into The Hobbit. He did it at a time when he should have been resting, enjoying the fruit of his rewards. Taking it easy. Living it up in New Zealand, making weird independent projects for fun. 

He did none of that; instead, he gave it all to us. He gave it all to The Hobbit. He gave it because he knew that by doing so, he was also preserving the legacy of his masterwork, THE masterwork, The Lord of the Rings.

Despite the prevailing view that The Hobbit trilogy was a failure, it isn’t. Peter Jackson succeeded. Sure, The Hobbit isn’t as good as The Lord of the Rings, but it’s still really, really good. More importantly, it continues the legacy of Jackson’s first three movies, carrying the torch of Tolkien’s Middle Earth without ever tarnishing it. How many other franchises can say that about their prequels? 

So the next time you’re watching Amazon’s terrible Rings of Power spinoff or Star Wars’s latest awful prequel, take a moment to say thank you to Peter Jackson. Thank you, Peter, thank you for preserving a beautiful legacy. Thank you for giving it all you had, against impossible odds, year after year after year, when you could have just quit. 

Enjoy your retirement, Mr. Jackson. You’ve earned it.

Claressa Shields and Papoose‘s recent baecation flicks have some social media users goin’ IN.

RELATED: Whew! Internet User Tells Claressa Shields Her “Attitude Is Not Nice” & Her Response Has Social Media Saying She “Proved Them Right”

More On Claressa Shields & Papoose’s Baecation Flicks

Earlier this week, Claressa Shields took to Instagram to share a clip showing off the results of her getting her hair done. Shields apparently switched up her look and opted for blonde. crimped tresses. Furthermore, the clip she shared showed her vibing to Yung Miami’s recently released single, ‘Tea Time.’

Subsequently, on Tuesday, March 10, Shields returned to Instagram to share a carousel, captioned, “BAECAY DUMP 🥰🤞🏾❤️ @papoose…” Furthermore, the initial slide showed Shields flossing her new hair; the second slide was footage of her and Papoose’s apparent balcony view, and other slides showed off their ‘fits and excursions.

Social Media Users Are Goin’ IN

Some social media users entered TSR’s comment section, goin’ IN on the flicks of Claressa Shields and Papoose’s baecation.

Before Claressa Shields & Papoose’s Baecation Flicks Had Social Media Users Goin’ IN, They Were Sharing Thoughts On Her Recent Comments

As The Shade Room previously reported, before Claressa Shields dropped her and Papoose’s baecation flicks, she had sparked reactions with her recent comments about his birthday. Earlier this month, Shields took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to share a message.

“My man deserve everything. I wish for his bday I could surprise him with a baby,” she wrote at the time.

In response, social media users were not too happy about her eagerness.

RELATED: Claressa Shields Claps Back After Sparking Heat For Saying She Wishes She Could “Surprise” Papoose With A Baby For His Birthday

Y’all! Terrence Howard is spilling a little tea about a surprising moment from his past involving none other than Queen Beyoncé. And the internet already has plenty to say. While reflecting on his early days navigating fame, relationships, and the pressures of Hollywood, the outspoken actor opened up about the connection that almost happened but ultimately didn’t.

RELATED: Terrence Howard Reveals How Much He Was Paid For ‘Hustle & Flow’ And ‘Crash’

Terrence Howard Says He Passed On Dating Beyoncé

During a recent interview with Patrick Bet-David, Howard revealed that he once had what he described as a “chance to date Beyoncé,” but he decided not to pursue it because he didn’t want to take part in what he called Hollywood’s “hookup culture.” The actor explained that at the time, he was focused on sticking to his personal values and prioritizing meaningful relationships rather than casual romances in the entertainment industry. When Bet-David asked if he ever looks back on the moment as a “what-if,” Howard replied, “Nah, that was never on the table for me.”

Howard Says Beyoncé Showed Him What He Missed

He went on to say that after he and Beyoncé had a conversation, he ended up speaking with another member of Destiny’s Child — whom he described as “the girl with the blue eyes.” The actor even claimed that during the iconic striptease moment at the BET Awards 2005 — when Beyoncé pulled him from the crowd to take part in the performance — he felt it was her subtle way of showing him exactly what he might have missed out on. Reflecting on that time, Howard admitted there was “a moment” where he felt something between them. However, he ultimately chose to go in a different direction romantically.

The Internet Can’t Hold It Together Right Now

After the clip started circulating, folks — especially Destiny’s Child stans — ran straight to X and acted all the way up. Some users quickly pointed out they don’t recall anyone in the group having blue eyes. Others immediately claimed they knew exactly who Terrence Howard was referring to. Meanwhile, plenty of fans were simply shook at the unexpected story and wasted no time sharing their reactions online.

now what child of destiny had blue eyes? 😂 https://t.co/h3GxVHvMod

— dante (@allthingsdante) March 10, 2026

He might be talking about Farrah… “flirting with every man you see, especially if the man likes me” -Bey “Fancy” post luggage gate 😭😭😭

— Kash (@candypainted25) March 10, 2026

Guys, what if he’s talking about Farrah 💀 I know she don’t got blue eyes, but didn’t she have green?? (Or were they hazel?) The timeline might the match up, but that’s my guess.

— Shammy🇳🇬 (@scikoro) March 10, 2026

Plot twist of the century 😂… imagine the alternate Destiny’s Child timeline!

— 🦞 (@realparis10) March 10, 2026

Advertisement

😭😭😭 who had blue eyes ?

— . (@othats_keem) March 10, 2026

RELATED: Chile! Beyoncé And Tina Knowles React To Seeing The Singer’s Long-Lost “Husband” At ‘Cowboy Carter’ Show

Travis Scott To SCOTUS
Using Rap Lyrics To Give Death Sentence Ain’t It!!!

Published
March 11, 2026
9:47 AM PDT

The legacy — and controversy — surrounding America’s Next Top Model is at the center of Netflix and E!’s documentaries, but how do the specials compare?

America’s Next Top Model, which ran from 2003 to 2018, followed aspiring models as they competed to receive a modeling contract, a fashion spread, a cover in a major magazine and a cosmetics campaign.

After Hulu made episodes available in 2020, America’s Next Top Model received backlash for its insensitive modeling challenges that featured concepts such as race-swapping, murder and eating disorders.

“I didn’t think it was controversial. I was in my own little bubble in my head,” Tyra Banks said in a rare comment for Netflix’s Reality Check docuseries, which premiered in February 2026. “Looking at the show now through the 2020 lens, it is an issue and I understood 100 percent why.”

Related: ‘America’s Next Top Model’ Contestants React to Shocking Netflix Doc

America’s Next Top Model’s most memorable contestants aren’t staying quiet about their experience on TV. After more than 24 seasons, the reality show is being put under the microscope in a new Netflix docuseries titled Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model. While host Tyra Banks and judges J. Alexander, Jay Manuel and Nigel Barker […]

Banks hinted at ANTM returning after she addressed the controversy.

“Looking at that show through the lens of today, it’s like, ‘Why did you do that?’ I thank you for that. That is the only way you change. That is the only way you get better is by somebody calling you out on your s***,” Banks said. “It is important. I want to let you know that I want you guys to be just as open as I am now by getting called on my s*** by when somebody calls you out on yours. Because that day will come and continue to evolve. Because that’s what we’re all doing.”

E’s Dirty Rotten Scandals, meanwhile, premiered one month later with different former contestants and participants. Keep scrolling to see how Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model and Dirty Rotten Scandals are similar — and how they differ:

Who Participated in Each Docuseries

Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model premiered in February 2026 with contestants who opened up about their experiences behind the scenes, which included discrimination, sexual assault and more shocking claims. Whitney Thompson, Giselle Samson, Shannon Stewart, Shandi Sullivan, Danielle Evans and Keenyah Hill were some of the alums who weighed in on their experience.

Dirty Scandals, meanwhile, featured Lisa D’Amato, Jaslene Gonzalez, Sarah Hartshorne, Brittany Brower and Angelea Preston.

Cycle 4 finalist Keenyah Hill sat down to speak with both Netflix and E! for their respective docs.

Related: Where ‘Top Model’ Alums Stand With Tyra Banks After Offscreen Backlash

Netflix’s America’s Next Top Model docuseries revealed where Tyra Banks stands with many former contestants after they offered their unfiltered opinions of the show. Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model, streaming now, features interviews from alums Whitney Thompson, Giselle Samson, Shannon Stewart, Shandi Sullivan, Danielle Evans and Keenyah Hill. New confessionals with executive producer […]

Tyra Banks’ Side of the Story

Reality Check incorporated Tyra Banks’ perspective alongside fellow executive producer Ken Mok and former judges Jay Manuel, Miss J. Alexander and Nigel Barker.

“I wanted to fight against the fashion industry. One day, this idea just hit me. What if I created a show where you saw what it took to become a model,” Banks explained. “And for this show to represent not all white, not all skinny and to just show all the differences and all the different types of beauties. I had a feeling that I was gonna change the beauty world.”

Banks wasn’t interviewed for Dirty Rotten Scandals — neither was Mok.

Incorporating the Judges Into the Narrative

Speaking of former judges, Jay Manuel, Miss J. Alexander and Nigel Barker sat down for individual interviews for Netflix’s version. Dirty Rotten Scandals, meanwhile, featured insight from judge Janice Dickinson — who was only mentioned in Reality Check.

Director Daniel Sivan told Tudum in February 2026 that he wanted to interview Dickinson, but she had commitments to a different documentary.

By Robert Scucci
| Published 36 seconds ago

Every man on Earth has one ridiculous fantasy that he clings to because the possibility of it ever happening gives him something to live for. Dane Cook insists every guy wants to be involved in an elaborate heist. The Farrelly Brothers’ Hall Pass suggests every man wants to stay faithfully married to his wife, but would love to sleep with other women if only his better half would allow it.

Both of these scenarios are so far-fetched that they will probably never happen. If they do, you’re likely ending up in jail or divorce court, and for good reason.

The most egregious male fantasy, however, involves raining hate on a barista because all you want is a simple cup of black coffee and they refuse to sell it to you.

In this fantasy, which I call the coffee con, the conversation escalates until people either scream or come to blows because they just want coffee with a capital C. The barista is convinced they should try something new and refuses to take no for an answer.

Denis Leary famously ranted about how hard it is to get a cup of coffee flavored coffee. Tom Segura had a similar bit in his Completely Normal special, along with an epic showdown on his Netflix series Bad Thoughts. Sam Loudermilk leans into the same setup with his cashier, and even Dennis Reynolds from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia has his moment trying to order a tea without any boba in it.

The result is always the same. A middle-aged dude complaining about how everything sucks now because he can’t get his bold-roasted cup of bean water.

The Coffee Con

The coffee con is the ultimate male fantasy, and I’m here to dismantle it because I am a black coffee drinker. Hot, iced, cold brew, it doesn’t matter. I have never once run into this problem.

I order my coffee. It’s poured into a cup. I pay the cashier. I leave and become a jittery mess.

I am a faulty organic machine that converts Frappuccinos into debilitating, clear-my-afternoon levels of digestive distress, so I avoid the fancy drinks at all costs even though they’re delicious. Not only has a barista never refused to sell me black coffee, the easiest beverage to make on the entire menu, the idea that they would is preposterous.

Having worked at an extremely busy convention center café, I never once stared cockeyed at somebody for wanting the simplest thing on the menu. Here’s a trade secret you may not know: baristas don’t work on commission.

It doesn’t matter if they’re pouring black coffee into a cup or juggling an espresso machine, blender, syrup pumps, and milk frother all at once. They make the same amount of money either way.

It’s simple math, and nowhere in their employee handbook does it say they have to act like this.

Denis Leary’s Straw Man Rant, And What’s Really At Play Here

Famous joke thief Denis Leary epically rants about the coffee con in his 1997 stand-up special, Lock ‘N Load. In the eight-minute bit that begins with “Is it impossible to get a cup of coffee-flavored coffee anymore in this country?”, he launches into everything wrong with the modern world.

I don’t think coffee is the primary focus of his rage.

Coffee is just the catalyst. If you read between the lines, there is something much sadder going on. He’s upset about the new guard pushing his generation toward irrelevance, one mochaccino, chocaccino, frappuccino, cappuccino, rapaccinio, and alpaccino at a time.

Leary’s true colors show during a side rant about his trip to 7-Eleven. He goes to great lengths describing the clerk as an over-tattooed, under-educated, tongue-pierced, dressed-like-a-gangster Gen X burnout who is somehow keeping him from his precious black coffee when he’s not huffing paint and drooling on himself. He mocks gang signs, makes a Wu-Tang reference that was already dated in 1997, and demolishes this fictional villain who is just trying to do his job.

The entire bit is a straw man argument. The 7-Eleven employee sounds like the biggest idiot on the planet when the far more likely explanation is that Leary filled his own cup with the wrong flavor, which finished with a hint of maple syrup, and was mad at himself because he forgot his grandpa glasses when looking at the self-serve carafes.

Is Denis Leary really mad about coffee? Or is he mad that the times are changing and blaming it on the youth he encounters?

Black coffee is a staple beverage at every café, truck stop, and diner in America. The only real change is that there are more ways to drink coffee now than ever before. Leary’s got the same energy as the crotchety university professor explaining to students that Vinyl LPs are “those big black things we used to listen to music on.” It’s the same attitude that criticizes kids for not learning cursive even though they had no say in how the curriculum was structured.

It’s Not The Kids’ Fault

Meanwhile, on planet Earth in the year 2026, you can walk into almost any café and order black coffee without pushback. I used to be a caffeine junkie back in college (I still am, but I used to be too!). It got so bad that, like a problem drinker, I strategically planned my day around entering different coffee shops at different times so I didn’t look like somebody who needed an intervention.

I knew when the shifts changed. Like a chain smoker lighting the next cigarette with the still-smoldering corpse of the previous one, I was mainlining offensive amounts of coffee into my body. Even then, the most egregious exchange I ever experienced was the barista asking one simple question: “Would you like room for milk?”

The more insidious problem that the coffee con reveals is that guys aged anywhere from 35 to death are afraid of how the times are changing. Their sacred preferences are being undermined by the next generation, waiting to take their place, and that scares the crap out of them. Or, as a 37-year-old, I should say, us.

Dennis Reynolds’ tea shop meltdown in “Dennis Takes a Mental Health Day” sums this up perfectly. He’s not angry because he can’t get a simple cup of herbal tea. He’s angry because the place doesn’t take cash, requires an app that tracks his consumption habits, and the employee standing in front of him can’t process the transaction without technological help because “the system won’t allow it.”

The fear of aging out is real, and everybody copes with it differently. Dennis is right to be distressed, but it’s not the tea place’s fault.

Men of a certain age distill that rage into the cup of coffee they want but assure you they can’t have anymore. In Loudermilk, when our hero runs into the same situation, he mocks the barista’s vocal fry. It’s hilarious because nobody should talk like that unless they have a medical condition. But it’s also telling because he’s not actually mad, he’s afraid.

Tom Segura takes it even further, going on a murder spree when too much milk is added to his iced coffee despite requesting light milk, resulting in a sequence of cinematic violence worthy of a John Wick movie. If anything, he’s riding the hate train against poor customer service, but coffee is still the fuel that keeps his anger firing on all cylinders. 

A False Equivalency At Play 

In all of these coffee con examples, front-line employees are belittled because their customer refuses to become a relic of the past. They just want good old-fashioned coffee, and nothing makes sense to them anymore.

They’re the Boomers who “don’t do email” and get replaced by three interns, and the Millennials who think AI is coming for their jobs, but refuse to learn the new tech, rendering them obsolete. It’s the same anxiety no matter how old you are, and the coffee con is the most distilled and aromatic way to express it.

But I assure you, and this is important, that the classics never die.

Thirty, forty, or even one hundred years from now, when society collapses for reasons of our own doing, you will still probably be able to get a cup of black coffee.

I promise you it’s going to be okay.