---
title: 'The report about why Supergirl bombed expose A LOT'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=OPB5Lp90zRc'
video_id: 'OPB5Lp90zRc'
date: 2026-07-14
duration_sec: 1304
---

# The report about why Supergirl bombed expose A LOT

> Source: [The report about why Supergirl bombed expose A LOT](https://youtube.com/watch?v=OPB5Lp90zRc)

## Summary

The video analyzes a Hollywood Reporter article detailing the troubled production of DC's 'Supergirl' film, which bombed at the box office. It explores how studio interference, creative clashes, and a lack of cohesive strategy led to its failure, drawing parallels to past DC missteps.

### Key Points

- **Introduction to DC's Ongoing Issues** [00:00] — The host discusses a new Hollywood Reporter report exposing problems at DC Studios, following 'Supergirl's' box office bomb, and aims to provide a balanced look at how studios make films and repeat issues.
- **Historical Context: Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman** [00:31] — Recalls how 'Suicide Squad' was marketed as dark but recut to be more comedic with needle drops, showing studio overreach. 'Batman v Superman' had 30 minutes cut, but the Ultimate Edition restored it, maintaining Snyder's tone.
- **Supergirl's Production Troubles** [02:14] — The Hollywood Reporter article details 'Supergirl's' troubled production: opened at $37.1M against a $186M budget, projected loss of $85-125M. Had over 4 test screenings (rumored 8), three composers, 25 minutes cut, and a bake-off between competing cuts.
- **Studio Interference Is Common** [03:42] — Notes that studio oversight is normal; Marvel fixes films in post with Feige's notes. Troubled productions like 'Apocalypse Now', 'Jaws', and 'Star Wars' succeeded, but failures invite scrutiny.
- **Test Screening Scores and Bake-Off** [05:13] — First test screenings in Dec 2025 yielded okay results; scores hovered in 60s, improved to low 70s. In March 2026, a bake-off pitted Gillespie's cut (11 min longer, more villain focus) against the studio cut, which won by 2 points for better pacing and song choices.
- **Post-Production Battles and Gunn's Influence** [06:13] — Post-production became a battleground. DC brought in writer Jeremy Slater; Gunn wrote Superman scenes. Two editors: Tatiana S. (Gillespie's) and Fred Raskin (Gunn's). Gunn pushed for a cover of 'Girls Just Want to Have Fun', later abandoned for 'The Middle' cover, which was criticized.
- **Gunn's Contradictory Promises** [07:27] — Gunn previously promised filmmaker freedom, but the report suggests the new DC is like the old DC. Gunn's style (guardians-like, needle drops) may not suit all projects, and his oversight stifles other directors' visions.
- **Strategic Missteps: Batman Should Have Been Second** [09:11] — Argues that after 'Superman', the second film should have been 'Batman', which guarantees $600M+, to build strong pillars. Instead, DC is using lesser-known characters without a clear event to build towards.
- **Lack of Cohesive Universe Building** [10:11] — The DCU feels like disconnected characters in the same universe without building towards an event, similar to post-Justice League era. Upcoming projects like 'Clayface' may not move the needle.
- **Marvel's Lesson and DC's Failure to Learn** [11:31] — Marvel learned from post-Endgame and is going all-in on 'Doomsday' events. DC should have seen this and not made the same mistakes, especially with mid-tier characters and high budgets.
- **High Budgets for Mid-Tier Characters** [12:28] — DC has high budgets for characters that aren't draws. 'Captain Marvel' succeeded between Infinity War and Endgame, but 'The Marvels' failed without an event. DC lacks such an event.
- **Paramount Merger and Corporate Uncertainty** [13:14] — The looming Paramount acquisition creates risk-averse decisions. An investor would choose a Batman movie over a Jimmy Olsen mockumentary. Peacemaker S2 low viewership and Supergirl's 74-80% second weekend drop indicate waning interest.
- **Gen Z Disinterest in Superheroes** [13:54] — An unnamed studio head said 'Gen Z does not care about superhero movies.' The host compares it to his own disinterest in Westerns as a kid. The genre may be seen as old, and catching up on 300 projects is overwhelming.
- **Gunn's Overextension as CEO and Director** [15:40] — Gunn's dual role as filmmaker and CEO is overwhelming. He writes scripts, oversees casting, editing, promotion, and business. Quality suffers when one person tries to do everything.
- **Corporate Pressures and Media Relations** [16:26] — The Paramount merger could lead to budget cuts or leadership shakeups. Gunn's public disputes with trades (e.g., denying casting rumors that later proved true) may have turned media against him, leading to negative reports.
- **Repeating Cycles of Failure** [18:11] — The Supergirl saga repeats patterns: no plan, poor test scores, over-reliance on test screenings, compromised director vision, and underwhelming releases. Prioritizing release schedules over quality and audience interest.
- **Original DCU Announcements Not Fulfilled** [19:16] — Many announced projects (Booster Gold, Paradise Lost, The Brave and the Bold, The Authority) haven't materialized. New projects are based on audience response to characters in 'Superman', showing a lack of coherent plan.
- **Uncertain Future and Potential Leadership Change** [20:12] — Gunn's contract may be up this year. If he leaves, fans face new leadership again. The studio cannot afford continued losses. The report may deter other directors from working with DC.

### Conclusion

The video concludes that DC is repeating the same mistakes of studio interference, lack of cohesive planning, and over-reliance on test screenings, leading to failures like 'Supergirl'. The future is uncertain with potential leadership changes and corporate pressures, leaving fans exhausted.

## Transcript

Welcome to the Heavy Spoilers Show. I'm your host,  Paul. And after our big video about DC last week,   a new report from the Hollywood Reporter has come  out exposing a lot of issues at the studio. This   comes in the wake of Supergirl bombing at the box  office and talks about some of the issues behind  
the scenes as well as some of the broader problems  at DC. Seems like history is repeating itself. And   in this video, I kind of want to give it a more  I don't hopefully a more balanced look at how   these studios make films and why they're running  into the same issues over and over and over. Now,  
if you cast your mind back to Suicide Squad,  then you'll probably remember that this was   marketed as this brooding and dark film before it  was then cut down to be much more Marvelike and   far more comedic. There were needle drops,  like them playing Eminem without me. Um,  
and basically the film cut to shreds. So, it  was completely absent of any of the character   development beyond one scene at the end. It was a  major turning point in the franchise and clearly   showed the studio overreach in which they would  actively derail a director's vision in order to  
deliver something that they thought the audience  might prefer. Now, they had done something   similar on Batman v Superman and there was over 30  minutes cut from the movie. This was, of course,   shown in the Ultimate Edition, which was released  on Blu-ray, giving audiences the full cut. Though  
Suicide Squad also got an extended version as  well, I think the main difference came down   to the fact that you could still feel Snider's  hand in the theatrical release and tonally it was   basically the same as the Ultimate Edition. Like  you watch the theatrical, you watch the Ultimate  
Edition. The Ultimate Edition is just a theatrical  with much more scenes in it. It's a much better   version. I must uh say that as well. And I highly  recommend you check it out if you haven't cuz it   basically writes a lot of the wrongs in the movie.  As for Suicide Squad though, it's clear they mess  
with the tone, feel, and score. And if we do  ever get the air cut, I think it's going to be   drastically different to what they put out there.  Sort of in the same way that Zack Snider's Justice   League is a lot different to Justice League.  Unfortunately, it feels like a similar thing still  
happening with there being lots of issues with  the final cut of Supergirl. On the 3rd of July,   The Hollywood Reporter published an exclusive deep  dive titled Behind the Supergirl Bomb, Competing   Cuts, Creative Differences. Written by Bora's kid,  the piece pulls back the curtain on the trouble  
production of DC Studios second film. Directed by  Craig Gillespie, it opened in below projections   at just $37.1 million. This put it as lower than  MorbiiUs, which was still kind of coming off the  
back of the pandemic. With a production budget  of $186 million, early projections estimate   it'll probably lose between $85 to $125 million.  Now, in the aftermath of it, one of the biggest   criticisms around the film was the needle drop  at the end. Gillespie even came out and said they  
tried 45 different songs and that James Gun had  the final choice. This kind of gave a hint that   there might be some internal creative clashes and  some studio interference during post-prouction. If   you've been keeping up to date with the film, then  you'll probably have heard that it had over four  
official test screenings, but there were rumored  to be more. Apparently, there was at least eight,   which is a hell of a lot more than most movies  tend to get. The film ended up going through   three composers as well, and there was also  25 minutes cut from the film. So, it did seem  
like it was all happening again. The article then  kind of goes beyond that and talks about how they   had a bake off between competing cuts. The studio  are clearly a bit dismayed by things in general,   and Peter Saffron has even come out and said that  though the film flopped, they're still confident  
the article, why this stuff happens a lot more  than you'd think, and overall the position it   leaves DC in, especially with a Paramount merger  looming on the horizon. Now, in Gun's defense,  
a studio overseeing things and making changes to  bring a film to be more tonally like the rest of   the franchise is not unheard of. In fact, Marvel  Studios basically built their entire production   line around the idea of fixing things in post. the  way they shoot films is that they'll go and make  
it, Feige will then watch it, give notes, and then  they'll go and reshoot scenes to fix or change   issues with the film. When the movie comes out and  does, well, yeah, no one gives a [ __ ] In fact,   it makes Feige seem like a creative genius because  he's basically the man that steers everything  
towards success. People not caring about  production issues if filmed as well is something   that we've seen throughout cinema history. Poor  Exampler. Apocalypse Now was a nightmare behind   the scenes and everyone thought it was going to  be an absolute mess. Jaws notoriously had a very,  
very, very troubled production as well. And  even Star Wars was just a [ __ ] show behind the   scenes. Apparently, Tom Hardy has even admitted  that when it came to making Fury Road, he thought   it was going to be a disaster. How about all those  movies came out and were beloved and therefore  
nobody cared. That was a [ __ ] nightmare to work  on. However, if a movie comes out and it's bad or   bombs, then obviously, you know, things are put  under scrutiny. Marvel made their movies that way   for years and years and years, but we only really  started learning about it once the project started  
doing badly and things were brought into question.  So, that's what this article is doing. It details   the aftermath of the production and says that  filming wrapped in May 2025. Things were then   put together and unfortunately by December 2025,  the first test screenings yielded only just okay  
results. multiple additional screenings and  followed in February and March 2026. Scores   hovered in the 60s initially and improved only to  the low 70s at best. This isn't good at all and   Batgirl actually scored in the same numbers before  being completely put to pasture. It's far from  
the robust numbers that studios like to see for a  summer tent poll. So in March that quote unquote   bake off happened. This pitted Gillespie's cut  against the studio one and the formers was roughly   11 minutes longer with more of an emphasis on the  villain creme. The studio cut one though by a slim  
two points which is pretty negligible and I think  you could have possibly shown it to a different   audience and Gillespie's cut may have come out  on top. May not have happened but either way the   margins are very very thin and yeah it's not a  decisive victory. However, that cut was praised  
for its better pacing, song choices and overall  flow. Gillespiey's version reportedly excelled   in certain scenes and music cues but that was  ultimately sidelined. Apparently, in the aftermath   of this, post-production became a battleground.  And DC apparently brought in writer Jeremy Slater,  
who'd worked with gun before on projects like  Peacemaker. Gun is also known to have written   the scenes with Superman as well, which yeah,  personally, I think are some of the strongest   parts of the movie. But this then led to nine days  of re-shoots. However, there was apparently more  
friction in the editing room. Two editors worked  on the film with these being Tatiana Srigirl,   who'd actually worked with Gillespie on Ita and  Kruella. In the studios corner was none other   than Fred Raskin who'd worked with Gun ever since  Guardians of the Galaxy I believe. Now these then  
shaped the film and it's Gun's tone and creative  choices that apparently then proved to be pretty   contentious. Gun is of course renowned for  his needle drops with that basically being his   signature style. Reportedly he pushed for a cover  of Cindy Looper's Girls Just Want to Have Fun,  
but this was later abandoned in favor of a cover  of the middle by Jimmy Eorld. This is of course   where the biggest stunk on social media seems to  have come from with many saying it's the worst   needle drop of all time, but I still stand by  the pit bull one in Aquaman. As for the best,  
that is of course the have sex song in Mobius  where Matt Smith dances about me. You'll [ __ ]   love that song. Who doesn't love that bit? That  is a 10 out of 10 movie because of that scene.   But yeah, there were a number of notes um lots of  competing cuts and it basically signaled that the  
studio wasn't confident at all in what they were  putting out. Now, why this has drawn such eye on   social media is because Gun previously put out  that he'd allow filmmakers the freedom to bring   their visions to life. But this report makes it  seem like the new DC is the same as the old DC.  
I think Gun is obviously, you know, a director  with a certain style that you can see right away.   Whether you like it or not, I think everyone knows  his projects are typically about a messy rag tag   group of anti-heroes that come together to form  a quote unquote family. Whether it's Guardians  
of the Galaxy, Creature Commando, Suicide Squad,  Peacemaker, even the script he did for the Dawn   of the Dead remake, blah blah blah, you get  it. Superman did seem like it would be totally   different and focused on just one character, but  even that ended up just bringing the Justice Gang.  
I even remember when the Supergirl trailer dropped  and I was saying that I don't know how many more   Guardians of the Galaxy style movies I can do and  that I don't think that tone works for everything,   which I got a lot of flack for. But yeah,  if you like it, you know, it's great. But  
I think if you have a creative that makes a lot  of the same creative choices, overseeing things   with someone who isn't necessarily that kind  of director, it's going to cause issues and   ultimately the person in charge is the one who's  going to decide what goes out and have the most  
influence. Again, I do think Gun makes good films  when he's doing what he loves, which are these   offbeat characters that the director can really  tackle. I think other than Superman, for for me,   he's done some really fantastic films and when  he's doing what he does best, it's it's difficult  
to fault him. to me anyway. But his stuff is  very very niche and I'm not sure if it's how   you build a strong foundation. It is still like a  bit crazy to me that Supergirl was the second film   cuz I think that's like one of those projects  that you save for like movie 10 at least. Now,  
if you watched our last video, then I am going to  sound like a basic [ __ ] again. Uh but I think   the follow-up film that you do to Superman is none  other than Batman. Every Batman movie without fail   makes at least like $600 million at least. Uh,  and you do that and you have a strong second  
film at the very least that you can then kind of  use to tease what's coming down the line. Be like,   he could be meeting Superman in the next one.  And then you've got like two strong characters,   strong films, and strong pillars of the universe.  Third film could then lead into a Wonder Woman  
film. And then at the end of that, you tease her,  Superman, and Batman meeting. But that's not what   they're doing. And I'm not sure if these projects  really feel aligned and that they're building to   something. even like skipping out in a postredit  scene like what the what the [ __ ] are you go  
what are you doing like tease the next one sell  the next one already instead though I think they   all just feel like disconnected characters that  exist in the same universe you know will bump into   each other but they're not going to build towards  anything that's sort of what we had in the DCU  
before this as well like after Justice League and  you had like Birds of Prey Shazam Aquaman 2 you   know Wonder Woman 84 they were all in the same  universe you might see one of those characters  
pop up in another film, but it didn't really feel  like we were building towards an event. And yeah,   looking at what the DCU is doing next, I don't  know if Clayface is going to really change   things. Look, hasn't been released yet, so maybe  it will. But we do know that that screenplay has  
gone through revisions as well. And Mike Flanigan  has said he's not sure what they're doing. It's   kind of been taken off him, but he does hope that  audiences will enjoy it. So, yeah, even that we   heard was like an amazing script, but they're  still working on stuff, which is a normal, I  
suppose. Um, but say Clayface is wellreceived. I'm  not sure how much it's going to move the needle in   terms of building towards a big shared universe.  Like I could make the best Seventh Seal analysis  
of all time, mate, but people probably aren't  going to watch it. So, I'm going to have to make   something popular alongside that, like a House of  the Dragon or a big TV show. Um, but it just seems   like DC like begrudgingly doing these popular  characters and guns more focused on doing like  
Creature Commando season 2. Supergirl has never  had a hit film. Her first film flopped and then   the Flash flopped. So, it's like why are you using  her to make the second movie? I think Marvel have  
also seen the writing on the wall as well post  Endgame and have realized that they need these   big events to fill seats which is why they've gone  all in on Doomsday. they're no longer continuing   down the road they were down. And the worst thing  is is that DC should have been able to see this  
as well and not make the same mistakes. All you  have to do is look at your competition and see   how badly their films have performed when it's not  a bigname character and simply adjust for that. I   think obviously Gun has struggled with Matt Reeves  as Batman being out there too. And though they're  
downplaying it and saying it's fine, I think  anyone with a brain can realize why it might   be a bit difficult to have two competing Batman  films out at once. Spider-Man gets away with it   with Miles Morales because it's it's an animated  movie and built around the multiverse, but I think  
in the case of Batman, there may be issues that  they aren't really talking about. Obviously,   you know, The Flash did it, too, but again, built  around the multiverse. But either way, I think   these reports cement the long-standing problems  at DC and Warner Brothers. They have pretty high  
budgets for mid-tier characters that aren't  really a draw to go and see. Captain Marvel,   you know, can make a billion when it's between  Infinity War and Endgame, but DC just don't have   an event like that to really draw people in. And  we saw what happened with the Marvels when it was  
just kind of just kind of in the ether. Even the  X-Men teaser cannot save you. Personally though,   I think DC's strategy of elevating lesserknown  characters before creating universe we care   about itself is always going to cause these kind  of issues. Even just the fact they've announced  
like a missed a terrific series in development and  a Jimmy Olsen comedic mockumentary makes me think   they don't understand what people will rush out to  go and watch. These projects still cost hundreds   of millions of dollars. And I think Paramount will  just be like, why aren't we using this money to  
make a Batman movie? Like if you were an investor  mate and you had millions of dollars on the table,   ask yourself, would you put it on a Batman movie  or a Jimmy Olsen mockumentary TV show? I mean,  
it's obvious, isn't it? The viewing figures  tell a grim story, too, with Peacemaker season   2 having low viewership and Supergirl's  second weekend being really bad as well,   which is made worse by the fact that it's also a  holiday weekend and people should be going to the  
cinema. plunging between a 74 to 80% drop. This  puts it amongst the ranks of the worst drop offs   for a comic book film in history. The interest has  evaporated quickly due to poor word of mouth and   a lack of interest in general. Beyond that, they  also have the fact that kids these days just do  
not care about this stuff. An unnamed studio head  even apparently bluntly told THR, "Gen Z does not   care about superhero movies. That genre belongs  to the millennials, those old [ __ ] bitches."  
And to be fair, I can totally understand why. Like  if you count um the X-Men is part of the MCU now,   which they they basically are cuz yeah, Hugh  Jackman's in the movies, then these franchises are  
basically older than most of them have been alive.  It's kind of like their dads and grandparents   movies. I remember being a kid as well. Um and my  grandmother was always like, I love cowboys and   Indians. Probably can't say that now. Granddad  used to say that Native Americans used to go,  
I love cowboy and Indian movies. and I just  never got into it. Looking back at the Western,   there was like millions and millions and millions  of those movies. Well, not millions, but a lot of   movies. Uh, and I just didn't care. I think that's  a similar thing to what's happening here. And we  
see this across the board with music, um, film,  TV shows, and everything. The whole point of being   a teenager is you rebel against what your parents  like. So, I I just don't know if they've got that  
interest. Plus, like you've got to watching  catch up on like 300 projects at this point,   and it just it's a bit overwhelming. Audience  polling and exit data from Supergirl also   reportedly reflected this demographic disconnect.  Now, the June release timing also pit the film  
against three strong contenders. Those were Toy  Story 5 and Obsession and back rooms. They were   aimed towards more smaller core audiences  like families, uh, Gen Z, horror lovers,  
smaller people with smaller groups, sorry. Um,  rather than trying to be like everyone should   come see this movie like most superhero films do.  I do also wonder if Gun's hands are a bit full as  
well. His dual role as a filmmaker and CEO must  be an absolute nightmare. And no modern president   exists for someone balancing hands-on directing  with overseeing an entire slate, especially at   this scale. The guy writes his own scripts, is  heavily involved with casting, editing, and then  
promoting the films as well. Plus, if he's getting  involved doing all that stuff on Supergirl, too,   it's going to be a lot of spinning plates. He  has to have a hand on the business side, too. And   yeah, when he's picking what projects to announce,  reading scripts and stuff, it's mental he can  
even do it. Like I used to do everything at the  channel. Uh but even now I've hit a point where   I just cannot have a hand on everything and this  is a small YouTube channel. I just don't know how   many people are built for that level of pressure.  So obviously the quality is going to suffer. Now  
looming over everything. The dreaded beast on  the horizon is the massive acquisition of Warner   Brothers by Paramount. The THR article explicitly  flags the anxieties of this as being a major   challenge alongside Supergirl's failure. Corporate  uncertainty often leads to risk averse decisions  
and you can get budget cuts or leadership  shakeups. Articles like this don't help either.   And any exec looking to push Gun out will be able  to point out the performances so far and things   like this to lay home their point. Honestly, I  also think Gun was a bit stupid going after the  
trades. You might have remembered uh they did  a report where they were like Adria or Jonah   um and a couple of others are in the running for  a role in Man of Tomorrow. and rather than just   not responding, he said it was fake and debunked  it. The trades even had to back each other up,  
and it looked dumb when she was announced as being  in the film a couple days later. Let's be honest,   mate, journalists are petty, and I think the  trades are probably going to be out for him now,   which is how reports like this end up  materializing in the first place. So,  
you could have the media against him and if  the money and audience on there, Ellison could   prioritize different strategies when it comes to  HBO Max integrating with Paramount Plus. due to   the return on the last 15 DC films as well. He  might even question the viability of expensive  
superhero projects when they really don't have to  make them. Historically, mergers and acquisitions   disrupts creative pipelines and executives  focus on integration rather than bull bets,   which is what Gun basically likes to do.  He's shown numerous times he likes to take  
less established characters. And because of  that, I just can't see them jelling. even if   the stuff they're putting out to the public says  they're invested in the direction DC are going.   So while Gun is stifling filmmakers creativity  in terms of Gillespie, he could be getting his  
own creativity stifled too. Unfortunately, the  Supergirl saga feels depressingly familiar.   And we have a studio repeating patterns that  have damaged DC and Warner Brothers for over a   decade. What we've seen time and time again is a  studio storming ahead with no real plan in sight  
and then getting poor test scores and completely  [ __ ] the bed. Batgirl was cancelled because of   them. Shazam 2 got mediocre ones as well and was  then reworked. Snider's films, a Suicide Squad,   they all had this over reliance on test scores to  dictate creative decisions and push the direction.  
Uh, which led to them trying to fix things in  post and it just was a total mess. Director's   vision was completely compromised and in the end  it led to an underwhelming release. When the hero   isn't a bankable name as well, I think you're  just asking for trouble. You're putting the cop  
before the horse in general and just rolling into  production on this stuff and asking if you can   make it without even asking if you should. It just  repeats the era of prioritizing release schedules   and corporate momentum over quality and if people  even care. Hell, if you go back to the original  
DCU announcement, uh it's it's mental how many  of those projects haven't come to fruition. Woah!   Booster Gold, Paradise Lost, The Brave and the  Bold, Booster Gold again properly. The Authority,  
none of them being made. They're all nowhere to  be seen while other characters are being announced   because they seem to have resonated with people.  But how big is the audience? Let's be real,   though. That's why Mr. Terrific and Olsen are  getting stuff. It's because they were in Superman  
and people liked them and responded to them. But  the plan is already totally different. And it's   like what was the point of announcing this stuff  in the first place? I think they're just desperate   to try and build something without having any  idea what audiences actually want them to build,  
what Gun wants, and also what the studio wants.  In essence, they're just repeating the cycles of   hype followed by creative compromise, audience  rejection, and external corporate pressures,   which undermines the very reason that gun was  hired to come in and reset things. The article  
does try and hammer home as well that despite the  setbacks, the DC core strategy remains intact in   that they'll build out lesserknown characters. But  I just don't know whether audiences will invest   in this wider universe if their flagship entries  are faltering. It's even been announced that Gun's  
contract could be up as early as this year. And  if he's out then, then it's going to be exhausting   for fans to see new leadership come once more. But  then I also don't know what else the higherups can   do as they I don't know if they can continue on  this path. The studio cannot afford to keep losing  
hundreds of millions of dollars every single  release. So I feel like the hierarchy of power   is about to change again. However, in doing that,  the cycle is just going to keep happening. I think   this report will also put off other directors from  working with DC as well because no one wants to  
come in and have their vision compromised and then  for the studio to throw them under the bus. You   might remember that Gun said they'd spoken to Ben  Affleck about directing for the studio and he said   he wasn't really interested in doing what they  were doing. So, I don't know if this is going to  
encourage more people to get involved. And yeah,  I'm just kind of burned out by the whole thing,   and I hope we don't end up in 2037 in the  exact same position as we are now. Anyway,   let me know your thoughts below. Um, I don't know  how often I'm going to do these kinds of videos. I  
just saw that report, made sense to build off last  week's video, and yeah, crazy that we're kind of   going through it all again, but hope to see you  on the next one. And please hit the thumbs up and   this video, too. I've been your host, Paul. You've  been the best, and I'll see you in the next one.