The trio of stars, each known for their controversial pasts and outspoken attitudes, are pushing to create a studio they say will provide a platform for films and television shows that reject political correctness, pop culture and what they perceive as the overreach of “woke” ideology in the media.
Rosee Barr, the legendary comedian who became famous for her outspoken conservative opinions, has been highly critical of Hollywood’s political correctness. Similarly, Mel Gibson, the Oscar-winning actor and director, has faced controversy over his own past statements and personal scandals. Mark Wahlberg, who is best known for his more mainstream success, has also spoken out about his struggles with pop culture and the pressure to conform to Hollywood’s increasingly liberal leaps.
The studio, which still has no name, describes itself as a “safe haven” for filmmakers, writers and actors who feel their creative work is being stifled by the so-called “conscious age.” According to a joint statement by Barr, Wahlberg and Gibson, the studio’s mission is to give voice to those who believe that Hollywood’s focus on ideological politics, social justice and narrow-mindedness has led to the marginalization of conservative and independent viewpoints.
“We are tired of being told what we can or cannot say, what we can or cannot think,” Barri said at the press conference on the topic. “Hollywood has become the place where you have to be afraid to say what you want. Our studio will be different. We are not going to avoid controversial topics, but we are going to give artists the freedom to express themselves without fear of being hindered.”
The release of the study is part of a broader movement in entertainment, where the growing focus on liberal culture has sparked a backlash from conservatives and critics of political correctness. In recent years, several high-profile figures in the entertainment industry have been outspoken in their criticism of the rise of ideological politics on television and television.

The term “acti-woke” has become a rallying cry for those who feel that Hollywood’s growing focus on social justice issues has gone too far, stifling creativity and reinforcing ideological homogeneity. Critics argue that movies and television shows are increasingly coveted by social standards rather than by artistic vision, and that certain voices are being silenced or marginalized because of their political beliefs or worldview.
For Barr, Wahlberg and Gibson, the studio represents a bold stance against this theory. The trio aspire to create a platform for artists to make films that reflect a broader spectrum of ideas and opinions, unconstrained by current cultural forms or industry pressures.
The film has already sparked much debate within the film industry. Supporters of the new study see it as a much-needed counterweight to what they see as Hollywood’s growing leftward tilt. They argue that there is too much of a film that represents traditional values, freedom of speech and personal expression without fear of social repercussions.
On the other hand, critics of the studio and its founders argue that its “active consciousness” approach will only perpetuate division, intolerance and harmful stereotypes. Many detractors argue that focusing on conservative ideologies instead of generally conservative stories could alienate much of the film-loving public, which is becoming more diverse and progressive.
Hollywood insiders are also skeptical about the studio’s chances of success, questioning whether the market for “woke” filmmakers will be sustainable in the long run. While some of the studio’s backers are already confident the project will attract a large number of fans, others worry it could alienate potential collaborators and filmmakers who may be willing to side with the divisive era.
Rosee Barr, Mark Wahlberg and Mel Gibson are largely oblivious to the controversy, and the developments in this venture underscore their shared commitment to taking on what they perceive as the liberal Hollywood establishment. While their careers have been checkered, this move represents a high-stakes gamble to reshape the direction of the film industry.
Rosee Barr, who saw her hit TV show “Rosee” canceled following a controversial 2018 interview, has become a vocal critic of Hollywood’s liberal leaps. Mark Wahlberg, despite huge success in films like “Transformers” and “The Fighter,” has also faced criticism for past actions and statements that some found offensive. Meanwhile, Mel Gibson has faced years of public scrutiny for his past behavior, but his track record as a director and actor has allowed him to build a loyal following.
In some ways, this shift allows them to create a space in Hollywood that stands in stark contrast to the dominant theories that dominate the industry today. The studio’s success could potentially shift the balance of power in Hollywood, with more conservative voices and viewpoints occupying a place in the industry that has traditionally leaned to the left.
As the studio prepares for the release of its first films, it will be interesting to see how the project develops and whether it can have a significant impact on the international film industry. Can it gain traction in the increasingly polarized cultural landscape or will it achieve its ambitious goals?
While the outcome remains uncertain, it’s clear that Rosemary Barr, Mark Wahlberg and Mel Gibson are not cowed by their controversial stance and are ready to take on the Hollywood establishment. Whether their future will transform the industry or simply stir up trouble remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Hollywood’s cultural battleground has just begun to shift.
News
The auditorium glitched into silence the moment Joel Osteen leaned toward the mic and delivered a line no pastor is supposed to say in public. Even the stage lights seemed to hesitate as his voice echoed out: “God will NEVER forgive you.” People froze mid-applause. Kid Rock’s head snapped up. And in that weird, suspended moment, the crowd realized something had just detonated off-script.
The crowd expected an inspiring evening of testimony, music, and conversation. What they got instead was one of the most explosive on-stage confrontations ever witnessed inside a church auditorium. It happened fast—36 seconds, to be exact.But those 36 seconds would…
The room stalled mid-breath the moment Mike Johnson snapped open a black folder that wasn’t on any official docket. Cameras zoomed. Staffers froze. The label on the cover — CLINTON: THE SERVER SAGA — hit like a siren. Johnson leaned toward the mic, voice sharpened enough to scratch glass, and read a line that made every timeline jolt: “Her email is criminal.”
Here’s the thing about made-for-TV government: it knows exactly when to hold a beat. Tuesday’s oversight hearing had the rhythm down cold—routine questioning, polite skirmishes, staffers passing notes like we’re all pretending this is not a stage. And then Mike…
🔥 “THE FLOOR SHOOK BEFORE ANYONE COULD SPEAK.” — Investigator Dane Bonaro didn’t walk into the chamber — he tore through it, slamming a blood-red binder onto the desk with a force that made the microphones hiss. The label on the cover froze the room mid-breath: “1.4 MILLION SHADOW BALLOTS.” He locked eyes with the council and snarled, “You want the truth? Start with this.” For one suspended second, every camera operator lifted their lens like they’d just smelled a political explosion.
Here’s a scene you’ve watched a hundred times if you’ve spent enough hours in hearing rooms and greenrooms: a witness with a flair for performance, a committee hungry for a moment, and a gallery of reporters quietly betting which line…
🔥 “THE SMILE FLICKERED—AND THE ENTIRE STUDIO FELT IT.” — Laura Jarrett walked onto the Saturday TODAY set with the kind of calm, polished glow producers dream of. Cameras glided, lights warmed, and the energy felt like a coronation. But right as she settled between Peter Alexander and Joe Fryer, something shifted — a tiny hesitation in her smile, the kind that makes everyone watching sit up a little straighter. And then it came: a voice from outside the studio, sharp enough to snap the broadcast in half. For a full second, no one moved.
Here’s the thing about TV milestones: they’re designed for easy applause. A new co-anchor takes the desk, the chyron beams, the studio lights do their soft-shoe, and everyone is on their best behavior. It’s a ritual as old as morning-show…
🔥 “THE ROOM STOPPED LIKE SOMEONE CUT THE OXYGEN.” — What’s racing across timelines right now isn’t framed as a speech, or an interview, or even a moment. It’s being told like a rupture — the instant Erika Kirk, normally armored in composure, let a single tear fall while standing beside Elon Musk. Witnesses in these viral retellings swear the tear didn’t look emotional… it looked inevitable, like something finally broke through her defenses. And when Musk turned toward her, the entire audience leaned in as if they already knew the world was about to shift.
It was billed as a calm forum on human rights—an hour for big ideas like freedom, transparency, and the obligations that come with having a public voice. The stage was washed in soft gold, the kind of lighting that flatters…
🔥 “THE ROOM WENT DEAD IN UNDER A SECOND.” — What unfolded inside the Senate chamber didn’t look like a hearing anymore — it looked like a trap snapping shut. Adam Schiff sat back with that confident half-smile, clutching a 2021 DOJ memo like it was the final move in a game he thought he’d already won. Staffers say he timed his line perfectly — “Your rhetoric ignores the facts, Senator. Time to face reality.” But instead of rattling Kennedy, something in the senator’s expression made even reporters lean forward, sensing the shift before anyone spoke again.
It didn’t look like much at first—another oversight hearing, another afternoon in a Senate chamber where the oxygen gets thinned out by procedure. Then Adam Schiff leaned into a microphone with a lawyer’s confidence, and John Neely Kennedy pulled out…
End of content
No more pages to load