I'm fascinated by Dan Stevens' character in EUROVISION, and how he was sorta the villain and sorta not the villain. Why did they do that? Was it to create a feeling of unity instead of fierce competition? Or was it because they didn't want to piss off Russia too much?

If the latter, you'd think they wouldn't include that dig at the end by about how "Mother Russia doesn't love" him. But it does highlight the international appeal of EUROVISION, and how Netflix might have been wary of making *any* contestant the villain.

I'm sure Netflix saw this movie as an opportunity to generate interest in every corner of the world. How cool it must have been to see your country's former Eurovision winner pop up in a cameo. But making a contestant a villain would sour the whole thing for at least one nation.

Back in the old days, you'd make an Olympic movie - a good comp here - and just make USSR or East Germany the villain. Can't do that anymore, not with the global box office or Netflix's plan for world domination.

So instead they made the villain a banker! Or an economic liaison or something. But he feels like a banker, and everyone hates bankers!

No, seriously, they had to make the villain from the home country of Lars and Sigrit because at least *they* wouldn't be pissed off about it.

This is a film that *needed* a good villain. You could feel it searching for one and then chickening out. If it was a creative choice, that's fine. It didn't work for me, but YMMV.

If it was a business calculation, that's a real bummer. End rant.