culture

The Last of Us co-creator Neil Druckmann exits HBO show

culture, gaming, halley gross, HBO, Naughty Dog, Neil Druckmann, the last of us / Kelly Newman / July 4, 2025

Two key writers of HBO’s series The Last of Us are moving on, according to announcements on Instagram yesterday. Neil Druckmann, co-creator of the franchise, and Halley Gross, co-writer of The Last of Us Part 2 and frequent writer on the show, are both leaving before work begins on season 3.

Both were credited as executive producers on the show; Druckmann frequently contributed writing to episodes, as did Gross, and Druckmann also directed. Druckmann and Gross co-wrote the second game, The Last of Us Part 2.

Druckmann said in his announcement post:

I’ve made the difficult decision to step away from my creative involvement in The Last of Us on HBO. With work completed on season 2 and before any meaningful work starts on season 3, now is the right time for me to transition my complete focus to Naughty Dog and its future projects, including writing and directing our exciting next game, Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet, along with my responsibilities as Studio Head and Head of Creative.

Co-creating the show has been a career highlight. It’s been an honor to work alongside Craig Mazin to executive produce, direct and write on the last two seasons. I’m deeply thankful for the thoughtful approach and dedication the talented cast and crew took to adapting The Last of Us Part I and the continued adaptation of The Last of Us Part II.

And Gross said:

The Last of Us co-creator Neil Druckmann exits HBO show Read More »

From Le Mans to Driven—where does F1: The Movie rank?

Cars, culture, F1 the movie, movie review / Shannon Garcia / July 3, 2025

How well does the world of F1 translate into the tropes of a sporting movie?

Damson Idris (left) and Brad Pitt (right) star in F1 The Movie, directed by Joseph Kozinski. Credit: Apple

It may not have escaped your attention that there’s a new film about motorsport called F1: The Movie. It’s a return-to-racing story with elements you’ll have seen before, just maybe with other sports. A driver has been looking to slay his personal demons. There’s a wise veteran, an impatient rookie, and an underdog team with its back to the wall. Except this time, the backdrop is the multicolored circus of Formula 1, seen close up at 200 mph.

Backed by Apple and made by people responsible for high-energy productions like the recent Top Gun: Maverick, the film takes advantage of some of those same ingredients. For one, the filmmakers got an all-access pass from the powers that be, filming on the actual Formula 1 grid during 2023 and some of 2024. Having seven-time champion Lewis Hamilton as a producer helped with that. And the filmmakers were able to capture remarkable footage in the process thanks to powerful cameras that are now much smaller than the versions they strapped to some US Navy fighter jets.

The movie comes with a prebuilt audience, one that’s grown enormously in recent years. The Drive to Survive effect is real: Motorsport, particularly F1, hasn’t been this popular in decades. More and more young people follow the sport, and it’s not just among the guys, either.

NORTHAMPTON, ENGLAND - JULY 04: The cars of the upcoming F1 based movie are seen driving on track during previews ahead of the F1 Grand Prix of Great Britain at Silverstone Circuit on July 04, 2024 in Northampton, England. — Spot the camera car. Credit: Joe Portlock – Formula 1/Formula 1 via Getty Images

I’m not a new fan, but I only started really paying attention to the series at the end of 1993. I’d have reviewed the film sooner, but the screenings occurred while I was on vacation, and the 24-hour races on consecutive weekends at the Nurburgring in Germany and Spa-Francorchamps in Belgium were not to be missed.

The setup of F1 sees Sonny Hayes (played by Brad Pitt) brought back to the world of F1 30 years after a crash ended his rookie season. We find Hayes racing in the Rolex 24 at Daytona, filmed at the actual race last year. He’s lured back to F1 by his old friend, who now owns APXGP, in a Hail Mary attempt to score some points before the end of the half-completed season, thus saving the team.

An F1 driver’s most immediate rival is always their teammate—they both have to drive the same car, after all, so comparisons are immediate. (Pedants: please no long arguments about different setups or upgrades—you know what I mean.) And thus Hayes’ rival is Joshua Pearce (played by Damson Idris), a young driver in his first season who sees no reason to trust a driver whose arrival in his team mid-season seems more like a practical joke. That’s as much of the plot as I’ll reveal, but the writing is so formulaic that you can probably construct the rest for yourself quite easily.

What works, what doesn’t?

That’s not to say it’s a bad film. Yes, it requires some suspension of disbelief if you know enough about racing, but the issues are pretty small. The racing scenarios seem outlandish, but all of them have happened at one time or another—just perhaps not all to one team in nine races. Mostly, it’s a very close look at some parts of the sport most of us would never see—an actual F1 wind tunnel test filmed at Williams’ facility, which required assurances to the sport that this wasn’t just a way for that team to gain some more wind tunnel hours. McLaren’s impressive MTC shows up, too, though I’m quite sure you can’t park either a car or a bike by that particular door and expect to find either there when you return.

Brad Pitt, an actor playing Sonny Hayes, and Idris Damson, a driver for the fictional APX GP team in the Apex F1 movie by Apple Studios and Bruckheimer Films, pose for a portrait during the F1 Grand Prix of Abu Dhabi at Yas Marina Circuit in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on December 5 to 8, 2024. — Pitt and Idris filming on-track at the Yas Marina circuit during the 2024 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Credit: Gongora/NurPhoto via Getty Images

That’s the level of detail you can expect to trip you up. You may notice that a sequence that’s supposed to be in Spain or Belgium looks a little too much like Brands Hatch, an hour outside of London. Or that a seat fitting should take at least some amount of time.

Among the film’s biggest successes is what we don’t see. The cars don’t have an endless sequence of gears for the driver to punch their way through. No one suddenly remembers to accelerate all the way halfway down the straight rather than out of the apex like in real life. No race cars are driven out of tracks into high-speed pursuits, and no drivers have conversations with their rivals mid-race at 8,000 rpm.

All of that qualifies F1 for a podium position among racing movies. Neither the recent Rush nor Ford v Ferrari could resist some of those dumber tropes, and even the most desperate racing junkie will admit that neither Driven nor Michel Vaillant are really worth the time it takes to watch them unless the intention is to Statler-and-Waldorf your way through it with a friend.

And of course, there’s Days of Thunder, which was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, who also produced F1. The NASCAR movie loses what was third place in my personal pantheon of racing movies to the carbon-fiber newcomer. There’s little distance between them; I’m just much more interested in F1 than stock cars.

Only 3rd place?

The only problem is that all this has been done before. The last time F1 was this big, the same combination of fast cars and good-looking drivers captured Hollywood’s attention just the same. John Frankenheimer was the man who got to make the movie, and 1966’s Grand Prix broke new ground at the time, starring James Garner, who I’m told turned out to be rather fast behind the wheel in filming. Its story is sentimental, and some of the acting is a little wooden, but it’s visually exciting and features spectacular footage of the 1966 F1 season.

James Garner and Toshiro Mifune starred in Grand Prix. FilmPublicityArchive/United Archives via Getty Images

The fact that Grand Prix broke so much more new ground than F1 means that Frankenheimer’s film finishes just ahead for me. But neither can quite supplant the magic of Le Mans, the 1971 film starring Steve McQueen, which was recently remastered on Blu-ray.

McQueen might have been one of the world’s biggest movie stars at the time, but he mostly wanted to be a racing driver. He wasn’t bad at it, either—in 1970, he almost won the 12 hours of Sebring in a Porsche 908 despite having broken his foot in six places a couple of weeks earlier. The actor was originally up for Garner’s role in Grand Prix and never gave up on a motorsports movie, capitalizing on his success in the late 1960s to get his own project underway.

Objectively, as a movie, Le Mans can be considered a failure. There is no dialogue for the first half-hour, just the occasional narration from a trackside announcer that contextualizes the scale of the annual 24-hour race. There was no script for months during filming, and the film went through directors John Sturges and Alan Trustman before Lee H. Katzin finished the job.

Even so, there was an assortment of many of the actual race cars that competed in the 1970 race at Le Mans. And the town had graciously allowed McQueen’s production company to close some of the roads used by the track for more filming. The cars were mostly piloted by the elite racing drivers of the time, but McQueen drove his own character’s Porsche 917K—at racing speeds but with heavy film cameras rigged onto it—as did Siegfried Rauch in the Ferrari 512.

This is what happens when you let a frustrated racing driver make a movie. CBS via Getty Images

Other footage had been shot in the actual 1970 race, both trackside and onboard, thanks to the same Porsche 908 that McQueen drove earlier that year in Florida, which was used as a camera car. At times, it’s more like a documentary. But only at times. With Le Mans, there was no CGI, and no other tracks were standing in for filming.

F1 can’t quite make that claim. At times, the cars seemed to be at slightly different scales on track—a product of Pitt and Idris being filmed driving slightly smaller, slightly slower F2 cars. Perhaps my biggest issue was with some of the unsporting behavior you see on screen. Those antics work better in a comedy like Major League; in a serious drama, it feels a little like disrepute.

None of that will stop me watching F1 again, however.

Jonathan is the Automotive Editor at Ars Technica. He has a BSc and PhD in Pharmacology. In 2014 he decided to indulge his lifelong passion for the car by leaving the National Human Genome Research Institute and launching Ars Technica’s automotive coverage. He lives in Washington, DC.

From Le Mans to Driven—where does F1: The Movie rank? Read More »

Ars reflects on Apollo 13 turning 30

Apollo13, culture, Entertainment, film anniversaries, films, NASA, Science, space history, Staff source, Universal Pictures / 9u50fv / June 29, 2025

Ron Howard’s 1995 love letter to NASA’s Apollo program takes a few historical liberties but it still inspires awe.

Credit: Universal Pictures

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the 1995 Oscar-winning film, Apollo 13, director Ron Howard’s masterful love letter to NASA’s Apollo program in general and the eponymous space mission in particular. So we’re taking the opportunity to revisit this riveting homage to American science, ingenuity, and daring.

(Spoilers below.)

Apollo 13 is a fictional retelling of the aborted 1970 lunar mission that became a “successful failure” for NASA because all three astronauts made it back to Earth alive against some pretty steep odds. The film opens with astronaut Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) hosting a watch party in July 1969 for Neil Armstrong’s historic first walk on the Moon. He is slated to command the Apollo 14 mission, and is ecstatic when he and his crew—Ken Mattingly (Gary Sinise) and Fred Haise (Bill Paxton)—are bumped to Apollo 13 instead. His wife, Marilyn (Kathleen Quinlan) is more superstitious and hence less thrilled: “It had to be 13.” To which her pragmatic husband replies, “It comes after 12.”

A few days before launch, Mattingly is grounded because he was exposed to the measles and replaced with backup Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon), who is the only one happy about the situation. But Lovell and Haise rebound from the disappointment and the launch goes off without a hitch. The public, alas, just isn’t interested in what they think has become routine. But the mission is about to become anything but that.

During a maintenance task to stir the oxygen tanks, an electrical short causes one of the tanks to explode, with the other rapidly venting its oxygen into space. The crew has less than an hour to evacuate the command module Odyssey into the lunar module Aquarius, using it as a lifeboat. There is no longer any chance of landing on the Moon; the new mission is to keep the astronauts alive long enough to figure out how to bring them safely home. That means overcoming interpersonal tensions, freezing conditions, dwindling rations, and unhealthy CO2 levels, among other challenges, as well as taking on a pulse-pounding manual course correction with no navigational computer. (Spoiler alert: they make it!)

The Apollo 13 crew: Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks), Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon), and Fred Haise (Bill Paxton). Universal Pictures

The film is loosely based on Lovell’s 1994 memoir, Lost Moon. While Lovell initially hoped Kevin Costner would portray him, Howard ultimately cast Hanks in the role, in part because the latter already had extensive knowledge of the Apollo program and space history. Hanks, Paxton, and Bacon all went to US Space Camp to prepare for their roles, participating in astronaut training exercises and flying on the infamous “Vomit Comet” (the KC-135) to experience simulated weightlessness. Howard ultimately shot most of the weightless scenes aboard the KC-135 since recreating those conditions on a soundstage and with CGI would have been prohibitively expensive.

In fact, Howard didn’t rely on archival mission footage at all, insisting on shooting his own footage. That meant constructing realistic spacecraft interiors—incorporating some original Apollo materials—and reproducing exactly the pressure suits worn by astronauts. (The actors, once locked in, breathed air pumped into the suits just like the original Apollo astronauts.) The Mission Control set at Universal Studios was so realistic that one NASA consultant kept looking for the elevator when he left each day, only to remember he was on a movie set.

The launch sequence was filmed using miniature models augmented with digital image stitching. Ditto for the splashdown, in which actual parachutes and a prop capsule were tossed out of a helicopter to shoot the scene. Only the exhaust from the attitude control thrusters was generated with CGI. A failed attempt at using CGI for the in-space urine dump was scrapped in favor of just spraying droplets from an Evian bottle.

It all paid off in the end. Apollo 13 premiered on June 30, 1995, to critical acclaim and racked up over $355 million globally at the box office. It was nominated for nine Oscars and won two—Best Film Editing and Best Sound—although it lost Best Picture to another Hanks film, Forrest Gump. (We can’t quite believe it either.) And the film has stood the test of time, capturing the essence of America’s early space program for posterity. A few Ars staffers shared their thoughts on Apollo 13‘s enduring legacy.

Failure should be an option

White Team Flight Director Gene Krantz (Ed Harris) insists, “We are not losing those men!” Universal Pictures

The tagline for Apollo 13 is “Failure is not an option.” But this is a bit of Hollywood magic. It turns out that NASA Flight Director Gene Kranz never said the line during the actual Apollo 13 mission to the Moon, or the subsequent efforts to save the crew.

Instead the line was conceived after the script writers, Al Reinert and Bill Broyles, interviewed Kranz at his home Texas, south of Johnson Space Center. They were so taken by the notion it became synonymous with the film and with Kranz himself, one of NASA most storied flight directors. He has lived with the line in the decades since, and embraced it by using it as the title of his autobiography. Ever since then the public has associated the idea that NASA would never accept failure with the space agency.

Of course it is great that the public believes so strongly in NASA. But this also turned out to be a millstone around the agency’s neck. This is not really the fault of Kranz. However, as the public became unaccepting of failure, so did Congress, and NASA’s large programs became intolerant of failure. This is one of the reasons why the timeline and cost of NASA’s rockets and spacecraft and interplanetary missions have ballooned. There are so many people looking for things that could possibly go wrong, the people actually trying to build hardware and fly missions are swamped by requirements.

This is why companies like SpaceX, with an iterative design methodology that accepts some level of failure in order to go more quickly, have thrived. They have moved faster, and at significantly less cost, than the government. I asked Kranz about this a few years ago, the idea that NASA (and its Congressional paymasters) should probably be a little more tolerant of failure.

“Space involves risk, and I think that’s the one thing about Elon Musk and all the various space entrepreneurs: they’re willing to risk their future in order to accomplish the objective that they have decided on,” he told me. “I think we as a nation have to learn that, as an important part of this, to step forward and accept risk.”

—Eric Berger

The perfect gateway drug

“Gentlemen, that’s not good enough.” Universal Pictures

Technically I am a child of the ’60s (early Gen-X), but I was far too young to grasp the significance of the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969, or just how impressive NASA’s achievement really was. The adults made us sit around the TV in our PJs and seemed very excited about the grainy picture. That’s it. That’s all I remember. My conscious knowledge of space exploration was more influenced by Star Wars and the 1986 Challenger explosion. So going to see Apollo 13 in 1995 as a young science writer was a revelation. I walked out of the theater practically vibrating with excitement, turned to my friends and exclaimed, “Oh my god, we went to the Moon in a souped-up Buick!”

Apollo 13 makes space exploration visceral, makes the audience feel like they are right there in the capsule with the crew battling the odds to get back home. It perfectly conveys the huge risks and stalwart courage of everyone involved in the face of unimaginable pressure. Nerds are the heroes and physics and math are critical: I love the scene where Lovell has to calculate gimbal conversions by hand and asks mission control to check his work. A line of men with slide rules feverishly make their own calculations and one-by-one give the thumbs up.

Then there’s the pragmatic ingenuity of the engineers who had to come up with a way to fit square air filters into a round hole using nothing but items already onboard the spacecraft. There’s a reason I rewatch Apollo 13 every couple of years when I’m in the mood for a “let’s work the problem, people” pick-me-up. (Shoutout to Lovell’s mother, Blanche—played by Howard’s mother, the late Jean Speegle Howard—and her classic line: “If they could get a washing machine to fly, my Jimmy could land it.”)

Naturally, Howard had to sacrifice some historical accuracy in the name of artistic license, sparking the inevitable disgruntled griping among hardcore space nerds. For instance, the mission’s original commander, Alan Shepard, wasn’t grounded because of an ear infection but by Meniere’s disease (an inner ear issue that can cause dizziness). Mission control didn’t order the shutdown of the fuel cells; they were already dead. Swigert and Haise didn’t really argue about who was to blame for the accident. And the film ignores the critical role of Flight Director Glynn Lunney and his Black Team (among others), choosing to focus on Kranz’s White Team to keep the story streamlined.

Look, I get it: nobody wants to see a topic they’re passionate about misrepresented in a movie. But there’s no question that thanks to Howard’s narrative instincts, the film continues to resonate with the general public in ways that a by-the-book docudrama obsessing over the tiniest technical details never could.

In the grand scheme of things, that matters far more than whether Lovell really said, “Houston, we have a problem” in those exact words. If you want the public to support space exploration and—crucially—for Congress to fund it, you need to spark their imaginations and invite them to share in the dream. Apollo 13 is the perfect gateway drug for future space fans, who might find themselves also vibrating with excitement afterward, so inspired by the film that they decide they want to learn more—say, by watching the 12-part Emmy-winning docuseries From the Earth to the Moon that Howard and Hanks co-produced (which is historically accurate). And who knows? They might even decide they want to be space explorers themselves one day.

—Jennifer Ouellette

A common touchstone

Lift-off! Universal Pictures

My relationship with Apollo 13 is somewhat different from most folks: I volunteer as a docent at Space Center Houston, the visitor’s center for Houston’s Johnson Space Center. Specifically, I’m an interpretive guide for the center’s Saturn V exhibit—the only one of the three remaining Saturn V exhibits in the world composed of tip-to-tip of flight stages.

I reference Apollo 13 constantly during guide shifts because it’s a common touchstone that I can count on most folks visiting SCH to have seen, and it visually explicates so many of the more technical aspects of the Apollo program. If I’m explaining that the near-avalanche of white stuff one sees falling off of a Saturn V at launch is actually ice (the rocket’s cryogenic fuels are fantastically cold, and the launch pad at Florida is usually warm and humid, so ice forms on the rocket’s outer skin over the liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks as it sits on the pad), I reference the launch scene in the movie. If I’m explaining the transposition and docking maneuver by which the Apollo command module docked with and extracted the lunar module from its little garage, I reference the T&D scene in the movie.

Questions about breathing and carbon dioxide? Movie scene. The well-known tension between the astronaut corps and the flight surgeons? Movie scene. And the list goes on. It’s the most amazing reference material I could possibly have.

The film has its detractors, of course, and most geeks wanting to take issue with it will fire shots at the film’s historical accuracy. (Apollo EECOM Sy Liebergot, played in the film by director Ron Howard’s brother Clint, griped once to me that the movie had the audacity to depict the Apollo spacecraft’s trans-lunar injection burn as occurring with the Moon visible in the windows instead of on the far side of the planet—an apparently unforgivable astronavigational sin.) The movie amps up the drama in all respects, adds dialog no astronaut or controller would say, mashes people together into composite characters, compresses or expands the timelines of many of the events in the mission, shows many of those same events happening out of order, and puts people (like Gary Sinise’s Ken Mattingly) in places and roles they were never in.

All these things are true—but they’re also necessary additions in order to get one’s hands around a messy historical event (an event, like all events, that was basically just a whole bunch of stuff all happening at the same time) and fit it into a three-act structure that preserves the important things and that non-technical non-astronaut audiences can follow and understand. And the film succeeds brilliantly, telling a tale that both honors the historicity and technical details of the mission, and that also continues to function as a powerful interpretive tool that teaches people even 35 years after release.

Is every button pressed in the right way? No. Does it bug the crap out of me every time Kevin Bacon answers Tom Hanks’ “How’s the alignment?” question by nonsensically saying “GDC align” and pressing the GDC align button, which is neither what Lovell was asking nor the proper procedure to get the answer Lovell was looking for? Yes. But’s also pure competence porn—an amazing love letter to the space program and the 400,000 men and women who put humans on the Moon.

And like Lovell says: “It’s not a miracle. We just decided to go.”

—Lee Hutchinson

Jennifer is a senior writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban.

Ars reflects on Apollo 13 turning 30 Read More »

Curated realities: An AI film festival and the future of human expression

AI, Ai video, Cristobal Valenzuela, culture, Features, film, image synthesis, IMAX, Runway, television, Video generation, video synthesis / Kelly Newman / June 24, 2025

We saw 10 AI films and interviewed Runway’s CEO as well as Hollywood pros.

A still from Total Pixel Space, the Grand Prix winner at AIFF 2025.

Last week, I attended a film festival dedicated to shorts made using generative AI. Dubbed AIFF 2025, it was an event precariously balancing between two different worlds.

The festival was hosted by Runway, a company that produces models and tools for generating images and videos. In panels and press briefings, a curated list of industry professionals made the case for Hollywood to embrace AI tools. In private meetings with industry professionals, I gained a strong sense that there is already a widening philosophical divide within the film and television business.

I also interviewed Runway CEO Cristóbal Valenzuela about the tightrope he walks as he pitches his products to an industry that has deeply divided feelings about what role AI will have in its future.

To unpack all this, it makes sense to start with the films, partly because the film that was chosen as the festival’s top prize winner says a lot about the issues at hand.

A festival of oddities and profundities

Since this was the first time the festival has been open to the public, the crowd was a diverse mix: AI tech enthusiasts, working industry creatives, and folks who enjoy movies and who were curious about what they’d see—as well as quite a few people who fit into all three groups.

The scene at the entrance to the theater at AIFF 2025 in Santa Monica, California.

The films shown were all short, and most would be more at home at an art film fest than something more mainstream. Some shorts featured an animated aesthetic (including one inspired by anime) and some presented as live action. There was even a documentary of sorts. The films could be made entirely with Runway or other AI tools, or those tools could simply be a key part of a stack that also includes more traditional filmmaking methods.

Many of these shorts were quite weird. Most of us have seen by now that AI video-generation tools excel at producing surreal and distorted imagery—sometimes whether the person prompting the tool wants that or not. Several of these films leaned into that limitation, treating it as a strength.

Representing that camp was Vallée Duhamel’s Fragments of Nowhere, which visually explored the notion of multiple dimensions bleeding into one another. Cars morphed into the sides of houses, and humanoid figures, purported to be inter-dimensional travelers, moved in ways that defied anatomy. While I found this film visually compelling at times, I wasn’t seeing much in it that I hadn’t already seen from dreamcore or horror AI video TikTok creators like GLUMLOT or SinRostroz in recent years.

More compelling were shorts that used this propensity for oddity to generate imagery that was curated and thematically tied to some aspect of human experience or identity. For example, More Tears than Harm by Herinarivo Rakotomanana was a rotoscope animation-style “sensory collage of childhood memories” of growing up in Madagascar. Its specificity and consistent styling lent it a credibility that Fragments of Nowhere didn’t achieve. I also enjoyed Riccardo Fusetti’s Editorial on this front.

More Tears Than Harm, an unusual animated film at AIFF 2025.

Among the 10 films in the festival, two clearly stood above the others in my impressions—and they ended up being the Grand Prix and Gold prize winners. (The judging panel included filmmakers Gaspar Noé and Harmony Korine, Tribeca Enterprises CEO Jane Rosenthal, IMAX head of post and image capture Bruce Markoe, Lionsgate VFX SVP Brianna Domont, Nvidia developer relations lead Richard Kerris, and Runway CEO Cristóbal Valenzuela, among others).

Runner-up Jailbird was the aforementioned quasi-documentary. Directed by Andrew Salter, it was a brief piece that introduced viewers to a program in the UK that places chickens in human prisons as companion animals, to positive effect. Why make that film with AI, you might ask? Well, AI was used to achieve shots that wouldn’t otherwise be doable for a small-budget film to depict the experience from the chicken’s point of view. The crowd loved it.

Jailbird, the runner-up at AIFF 2025.

Then there was the Grand Prix winner, Jacob Adler’s Total Pixel Space, which was, among other things, a philosophical defense of the very idea of AI art. You can watch Total Pixel Space on YouTube right now, unlike some of the other films. I found it strangely moving, even as I saw its selection as the festival’s top winner with some cynicism. Of course they’d pick that one, I thought, although I agreed it was the most interesting of the lot.

Total Pixel Space, the Grand Prix winner at AIFF 2025.

Total Pixel Space

Even though it risked navel-gazing and self-congratulation in this venue, Total Pixel Space was filled with compelling imagery that matched the themes, and it touched on some genuinely interesting ideas—at times, it seemed almost profound, didactic as it was.

“How many images can possibly exist?” the film’s narrator asked. To answer that, it explains the concept of total pixel space, which actually reflects how image generation tools work:

Pixels are the building blocks of digital images—tiny tiles forming a mosaic. Each pixel is defined by numbers representing color and position. Therefore, any digital image can be represented as a sequence of numbers…

Just as we don’t need to write down every number between zero and one to prove they exist, we don’t need to generate every possible image to prove they exist. Their existence is guaranteed by the mathematics that defines them… Every frame of every possible film exists as coordinates… To deny this would be to deny the existence of numbers themselves.

The nine-minute film demonstrates that the number of possible images or films is greater than the number of atoms in the universe and argues that photographers and filmmakers may be seen as discovering images that already exist in the possibility space rather than creating something new.

Within that framework, it’s easy to argue that generative AI is just another way for artists to “discover” images.

The balancing act

“We are all—and I include myself in that group as well—obsessed with technology, and we keep chatting about models and data sets and training and capabilities,” Runway CEO Cristóbal Valenzuela said to me when we spoke the next morning. “But if you look back and take a minute, the festival was celebrating filmmakers and artists.”

I admitted that I found myself moved by Total Pixel Space‘s articulations. “The winner would never have thought of himself as a filmmaker, and he made a film that made you feel something,” Valenzuela responded. “I feel that’s very powerful. And the reason he could do it was because he had access to something that just wasn’t possible a couple of months ago.”

First-time and outsider filmmakers were the focus of AIFF 2025, but Runway works with established studios, too—and those relationships have an inherent tension.

The company has signed deals with companies like Lionsgate and AMC Networks. In some cases, it trains on data provided by those companies; in others, it embeds within them to try to develop tools that fit how they already work. That’s not something competitors like OpenAI are doing yet, so that, combined with a head start in video generation, has allowed Runway to grow and stay competitive so far.

“We go directly into the companies, and we have teams of creatives that are working alongside them. We basically embed ourselves within the organizations that we’re working with very deeply,” Valenzuela explained. “We do versions of our film festival internally for teams as well so they can go through the process of making something and seeing the potential.”

Founded in 2018 at New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts by two Chileans and one Greek co-founder, Runway has a very different story than its Silicon Valley competitors. It was one of the first to bring an actually usable video-generation tool to the masses. Runway also contributed in foundational ways to the popular Stable Diffusion model.

Though it is vastly outspent by competitors like OpenAI, it has taken a hands-on approach to working with existing industries. You won’t hear Valenzuela or other Runway leaders talking about the imminence of AGI or anything so lofty; instead, it’s all about selling the product as something that can solve existing problems in creatives’ workflows.

Still, an artist’s mindset and relationships within the industry don’t negate some fundamental conflicts. There are multiple intellectual property cases involving Runway and its peers, and though the company hasn’t admitted it, there is evidence that it trained its models on copyrighted YouTube videos, among other things.

Cristóbal Valenzuela speaking on the AIFF 2025 stage. Credit: Samuel Axon

Valenzuela suggested that studios are worried about liability, not underlying principles, though, saying:

Most of the concerns on copyright are on the output side, which is like, how do you make sure that the model doesn’t create something that already exists or infringes on something. And I think for that, we’ve made sure our models don’t and are supportive of the creative direction you want to take without being too limiting. We work with every major studio, and we offer them indemnification.

In the past, he has also defended Runway by saying that what it’s producing is not a re-creation of what has come before. He sees the tool’s generative process as distinct—legally, creatively, and ethically—from simply pulling up assets or references from a database.

“People believe AI is sort of like a system that creates and conjures things magically with no input from users,” he said. “And it’s not. You have to do that work. You still are involved, and you’re still responsible as a user in terms of how you use it.”

He seemed to share this defense of AI as a legitimate tool for artists with conviction, but given that he’s been pitching these products directly to working filmmakers, he was also clearly aware that not everyone agrees with him. There is not even a consensus among those in the industry.

An industry divided

While in LA for the event, I visited separately with two of my oldest friends. Both of them work in the film and television industry in similar disciplines. They each asked what I was in town for, and I told them I was there to cover an AI film festival.

One immediately responded with a grimace of disgust, “Oh, yikes, I’m sorry.” The other responded with bright eyes and intense interest and began telling me how he already uses AI in his day-to-day to do things like extend shots by a second or two for a better edit, and expressed frustration at his company for not adopting the tools faster.

Neither is alone in their attitudes. Hollywood is divided—and not for the first time.

There have been seismic technological changes in the film industry before. There was the transition from silent films to talkies, obviously; moviemaking transformed into an entirely different art. Numerous old jobs were lost, and numerous new jobs were created.

Later, there was the transition from film to digital projection, which may be an even tighter parallel. It was a major disruption, with some companies and careers collapsing while others rose. There were people saying, “Why do we even need this?” while others believed it was the only sane way forward. Some audiences declared the quality worse, and others said it was better. There were analysts arguing it could be stopped, while others insisted it was inevitable.

IMAX’s head of post production, Bruce Markoe, spoke briefly about that history at a press mixer before the festival. “It was a little scary,” he recalled. “It was a big, fundamental change that we were going through.”

People ultimately embraced it, though. “The motion picture and television industry has always been very technology-forward, and they’ve always used new technologies to advance the state of the art and improve the efficiencies,” Markoe said.

When asked whether he thinks the same thing will happen with generative AI tools, he said, “I think some filmmakers are going to embrace it faster than others.” He pointed to AI tools’ usefulness for pre-visualization as particularly valuable and noted some people are already using it that way, but it will take time for people to get comfortable with.

And indeed, many, many filmmakers are still loudly skeptical. “The concept of AI is great,” The Mitchells vs. the Machines director Mike Rianda said in a Wired interview. “But in the hands of a corporation, it is like a buzzsaw that will destroy us all.”

Others are interested in the technology but are concerned that it’s being brought into the industry too quickly, with insufficient planning and protections. That includes Crafty Apes Senior VFX Supervisor Luke DiTomasso. “How fast do we roll out AI technologies without really having an understanding of them?” he asked in an interview with Production Designers Collective. “There’s a potential for AI to accelerate beyond what we might be comfortable with, so I do have some trepidation and am maybe not gung-ho about all aspects of it.“

Others remain skeptical that the tools will be as useful as some optimists believe. “AI never passed on anything. It loved everything it read. It wants you to win. But storytelling requires nuance—subtext, emotion, what’s left unsaid. That’s something AI simply can’t replicate,” said Alegre Rodriquez, a member of the Emerging Technology committee at the Motion Picture Editors Guild.

The mirror

Flying back from Los Angeles, I considered two key differences between this generative AI inflection point for Hollywood and the silent/talkie or film/digital transitions.

First, neither of those transitions involved an existential threat to the technology on the basis of intellectual property and copyright. Valenzuela talked about what matters to studio heads—protection from liability over the outputs. But the countless creatives who are critical of these tools also believe they should be consulted and even compensated for their work’s use in the training data for Runway’s models. In other words, it’s not just about the outputs, it’s also about the sourcing. As noted before, there are several cases underway. We don’t know where they’ll land yet.

Second, there’s a more cultural and philosophical issue at play, which Valenzuela himself touched on in our conversation.

“I think AI has become this sort of mirror where anyone can project all their fears and anxieties, but also their optimism and ideas of the future,” he told me.

You don’t have to scroll for long to come across techno-utopians declaring with no evidence that AGI is right around the corner and that it will cure cancer and save our society. You also don’t have to scroll long to encounter visceral anger at every generative AI company from people declaring the technology—which is essentially just a new methodology for programming a computer—fundamentally unethical and harmful, with apocalyptic societal and economic ramifications.

Amid all those bold declarations, this film festival put the focus on the on-the-ground reality. First-time filmmakers who might never have previously cleared Hollywood’s gatekeepers are getting screened at festivals because they can create competitive-looking work with a fraction of the crew and hours. Studios and the people who work there are saying they’re saving time, resources, and headaches in pre-viz, editing, visual effects, and other work that’s usually done under immense time and resource pressure.

“People are not paying attention to the very huge amount of positive outcomes of this technology,” Valenzuela told me, pointing to those examples.

In this online discussion ecosystem that elevates outrage above everything else, that’s likely true. Still, there is a sincere and rigorous conviction among many creatives that their work is contributing to this technology’s capabilities without credit or compensation and that the structural and legal frameworks to ensure minimal human harm in this evolving period of disruption are still inadequate. That’s why we’ve seen groups like the Writers Guild of America West support the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act and other similar legislation meant to increase transparency about how these models are trained.

The philosophical question with a legal answer

The winning film argued that “total pixel space represents both the ultimate determinism and the ultimate freedom—every possibility existing simultaneously, waiting for consciousness to give it meaning through the act of choice.”

In making this statement, the film suggested that creativity, above all else, is an act of curation. It’s a claim that nothing, truly, is original. It’s a distillation of human expression into the language of mathematics.

To many, that philosophy rings undeniably true: Every possibility already exists, and artists are just collapsing the waveform to the frame they want to reveal. To others, there is more personal truth to the romantic ideal that artwork is valued precisely because it did not exist until the artist produced it.

All this is to say that the debate about creativity and AI in Hollywood is ultimately a philosophical one. But it won’t be resolved that way.

The industry may succumb to litigation fatigue and a hollowed-out workforce—or it may instead find its way to fair deals, new opportunities for fresh voices, and transparent training sets.

For all this lofty talk about creativity and ideas, the outcome will come down to the contracts, court decisions, and compensation structures—all things that have always been at least as big a part of Hollywood as the creative work itself.

Samuel Axon is the editorial lead for tech and gaming coverage at Ars Technica. He covers AI, software development, gaming, entertainment, and mixed reality. He has been writing about gaming and technology for nearly two decades at Engadget, PC World, Mashable, Vice, Polygon, Wired, and others. He previously ran a marketing and PR agency in the gaming industry, led editorial for the TV network CBS, and worked on social media marketing strategy for Samsung Mobile at the creative agency SPCSHP. He also is an independent software and game developer for iOS, Windows, and other platforms, and he is a graduate of DePaul University, where he studied interactive media and software development.

Curated realities: An AI film festival and the future of human expression Read More »

Paramount drops trailer for The Naked Gun reboot

culture, Entertainment, film trailers, Liam Neeson, Paramount Pictures, The Naked Gun 2025, Trailers / Shannon Garcia / June 17, 2025

Liam Neeson stars as Lt. Frank Drebin Jr. in The Naked Gun.

Thirty years after the last film in The Naked Gun crime-spoof comedy franchise, we’re finally getting a new installment, The Naked Gun, described as a “legacy sequel.” And it’s Liam Neeson stepping into Leslie Nielsen’s fumbling shoes, playing that character’s son. Judging by the official trailer, Neeson is up to the task, showcasing his screwball comedy chops.

(Some spoilers for the first three films in the franchise below.)

The original Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! debuted in 1988, with Leslie Nielsen starring as Detective Frank Drebin, trying to foil an assassination attempt on Queen Elizabeth II during her visit to the US. It proved successful enough to launch two sequels. Naked Gun 2-1/2: The Smell of Fear (1991) found Drebin battling an evil plan to kidnap a prominent nuclear scientist. Naked Gun 33-1/3: The Final Insult (1994) found Drebin coming out of retirement and going undercover to take down a crime syndicate planning to blow up the Academy Awards.

The franchise rather lost steam after that, but by 2013, Paramount was planning a reboot starring Ed Helms as “Frank Drebin, no relation.” David Zucker, who produced the prior Naked Gun films and directed the first two, declined to be involved, feeling it could only be “inferior” to his originals. He was briefly involved in the 2017 rewrites, featuring Frank’s son as a secret agent rather than a policeman. That film never transpired either. The project was revived again in 2021 by Seth MacFarlane (without Zucker’s involvement), and Neeson was cast as Frank Drebin Jr.—a police lieutenant in this incarnation.

In addition to Neeson, the film stars Paul Walter Hauser as Captain Ed Hocken, Jr.—Hauser will also appear as Mole Man in the forthcoming Fantastic Four: First Steps—and Pamela Anderson as a sultry femme fatale named Beth. The cast also includes Kevin Durand, Danny Huston, Liza Koshy, Cody Rhodes, CCH Pounder, Busta Rhymes, and Eddy Yu.

Paramount drops trailer for The Naked Gun reboot Read More »

The “online monkey torture video” arrests just keep coming

culture, Law, Monkey, Torture, videos / 9u50fv / June 14, 2025

So the group tried again. “Million tears” had been booted by its host, but the group reconstituted on another platform and renamed itself “the trail of trillion tears.” They reached out to another Indonesian videographer and asked for a more graphic version of the same video. But this version, more sadistic than the last, still didn’t satisfy. As one of the Americans allegedly said to another, “honey that’s not what you asked for. Thats the village idiot version. But I’m talking with someone about getting a good vo [videographer] to do it.”

Arrests continue

In 2021, someone leaked communications from the “million tears” group to animals rights organizations like Lady Freethinker and Action for Primates, which handed it over to authorities. Still, it took several years to arrest and prosecute the torture group’s leaders.

In 2024, one of these leaders—Ronald Bedra of Ohio—pled guilty to commissioning the videos and to mailing “a thumb drive containing 64 videos of monkey torture to a co-conspirator in Wisconsin.” His mother, in a sentencing letter to the judge, said that her son must “have been undergoing some mental crisis when he decided to create the website.” As a boy, he had loved all of the family pets, she said, even providing a funeral for a fish.

Bedra was sentenced late last year to 54 months in prison. According to letters from family members, he has also lost his job, his wife, and his kids.

In April 2025, two more alleged co-conspirators were indicted and subsequently arrested; their cases were unsealed only this week. Two other co-conspirators from this group still appear to be uncharged.

In May 2025, 11 other Americans were indicted for their participation in monkey torture groups, though they appear to come from a different network. This group allegedly “paid a minor in Indonesia to commit the requested acts on camera.”

As for the Indonesian side of this equation, arrests have been happening there, too. Following complaints from animal rights groups, police in Indonesia have arrested multiple videographers over the last two years.

Update: Showing the international nature of these torture groups, the Scottish Sun just ran a rather lurid piece about the “sadistic Scots mum jailed for helping to run a horrific global monkey torture network.” The 39-year-old was apparently caught after US authorities broke up another monkey torturing network based around outsourcing the torture to Indonesia.

The “online monkey torture video” arrests just keep coming Read More »

A warlord brings chaos in Foundation S3 trailer

Apple TV Plus, culture, Entertainment, foundation, Isaac Asimov, streaming television / Mike M. / June 11, 2025

Foundation returns for a third season next month on Apple TV+.

Foundation, Apple TV+’s lavish adaptation (or re-mix, if you prefer) of Isaac Asimov’s seminal sci-fi series, returns for its third season next month, and the streaming platform has dropped an official trailer to give us a taste of what’s in store.

As previously reported, the first season ended with a major time jump of 138 years, and S2 focused on the Second Crisis: imminent war between Empire and the Foundation, along with an enemy seeking to destroy Empire from within. The Foundation, meanwhile, adopted the propaganda tactics of religion to recruit new acolytes to the cause. We also met a colony of “Mentalics” with psionic abilities. We’re getting another mega time jump for the Third Crisis.

Per the official premise:

Set 152 years after the events of S2, The Foundation has become increasingly established far beyond its humble beginnings while the Cleonic Dynasty’s Empire has dwindled. As both of these galactic powers forge an uneasy alliance, a threat to the entire galaxy appears in the fearsome form of a warlord known as “The Mule” whose sights are set on ruling the universe by use of physical and military force, as well as mind control. It’s anyone’s guess who will win, who will lose, who will live, and who will die as Hari Seldon, Gaal Dornick, the Cleons and Demerzel play a potentially deadly game of intergalactic chess.

Most of the main cast is returning: Lee Pace as Brother Day, Cassian Bilton as Brother Dawn, Terrence Mann as Brother Dusk, Jared Harris as Hari Seldon, Lou Llobell as Gaal, and Laura Birn as Eto Demerzel. Pilou Asbæk plays the Mule. New S3 cast members include Alexander Siddig as Dr. Ebling Mis, a Seldon fan and self-taught psychohistorian; Troy Kotsur as Preem Palver, leader of a planet of psychics; Cherry Jones as Foundation Ambassador Quent; Brandon P. Bell as Han Pritcher; Synnøve Karlsen as Bayta Mallow; Cody Fern as Toran Mallow; Tómas Lemarquis as Magnifico Giganticus; Yootha Wong-Loi-Sing as Song; and Leo Bill as Mayor Indbur.

A warlord brings chaos in Foundation S3 trailer Read More »

Review: The John Wick franchise is alive and kicking with Ballerina

Ballerina, culture, Entertainment, film reviews, John Wick franchise, Lionsgate / Kelly Newman / June 10, 2025

Ballerina has all the eye-popping visuals, lavish sets, and spectacularly inventive stuntwork one would expect from a film set in the John Wick universe. It’s a more tightly plotted than recent entries in the franchise, and the globe-trotting locations make narrative sense; it’s not just an excuse for staging a spectacle (not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that).

[WARNING: A couple of significant spoilers below. Do not proceed if you haven’t the seen the film.]

This was Lance Reddick’s final appearance as the concierge Charon. Lionsgate

As always, the fight choreography is perfection. Eve is smaller than most of the men she takes on, but that doesn’t make her any less deadly, particularly when she’s more than willing to fight dirty—and pretty skilled at making lethal weapons out of, say, a random pair of ice skates. A fight scene with dueling flame throwers is one for the ages. It’s a genuine shame that Ballerina‘s highly skilled stunt team isn’t eligible for the new Oscar category honoring stunt work.

I do have a couple of minor quibbles. While any appearance of Keanu Reeves’ John Wick is always welcome, it’s not clear why the Ruska Roma would send him to take out Eve when she defies direct orders. This all occurs during the events of Parabellum, and we’ve already seen Wick “punch his ticket” with the Director to escape New York City with a contract on his head. Are we supposed to believe that he found time during all those Parabellum shootouts for a brief stopover in a remote alpine village to engage in a spot of target practice?

The other quibble is more of a missed opportunity. One of the Chancellor’s minions is an assassin named Lena (Catalina Sandino Moreno), who turns out to be Eve’s long-lost sister. But their reunion is short-lived. Once the Chancellor realizes Lena will balk at killing her own sister, he gives the order to take them both out, and Lena dies protecting Eve. I understand that John Wick movies are about the violence, but giving this character and her connection to Eve a bit more time to develop would have given Ballerina a bit of emotional depth. Lena deserved to be more than momentary cannon fodder. On the whole, however, Ballerina is an immensely entertaining and action-packed addition to the franchise.

From the World of John Wick: Ballerina is now playing in theaters. The finale leaves things open for a sequel, and I think de Armas (and Eve) deserve the chance to continue their story. Here’s hoping.

Review: The John Wick franchise is alive and kicking with Ballerina Read More »

Xenomorphs are back and bad as ever in Alien: Earth trailer

Alien: Earth, culture, Entertainment, FX/Hulu, streaming television, Trailers / Beth Washington / June 5, 2025

Alien: Earth is set two years before the events of 1979’s Alien.

It’s been a long wait for diehard fans of Ridley Scott’s Alien franchise, but we finally have a fittingly sinister official trailer for the spinoff prequel series, Alien: Earth, coming this summer to FX/Hulu.

As previously reported, the official premise is short and sweet: “When a mysterious space vessel crash-lands on Earth, a young woman (Sydney Chandler) and a ragtag group of tactical soldiers make a fateful discovery that puts them face-to-face with the planet’s greatest threat.”

The series is set in 2120, two years before the events of the first film, Alien (1979), in a world where corporate interests are competing to be the first to unlock the key to human longevity—maybe even immortality. Showrunner Noah Hawley has said that the style and mythology will be closer to that film than Prometheus (2012) or Alien: Covenant, both of which were also prequels.

Chandler’s character is named Wendy; she’s a human/synth hybrid described as having “the body of an adult and the consciousness of a child.” Timothy Olyphant plays her synth mentor and trainer, Kirsh. The cast also includes Alex Lawther as a soldier named CJ, Samuel Blenkin as a CEO named Boy Kavalier, Essie Davis as Dame Silvia, Adarsh Gourav as Slightly, Kit Young as Tootles, David Rysdahl as Arthur, Babou Ceesay as Morrow, Jonathan Ajayi as Smee, Erana James as Curly, Lily Newmark as Nibs, Diem Camille as Siberian, and Adrian Edmondson as Atom Eins.

Xenomorphs are back and bad as ever in Alien: Earth trailer Read More »

Squid Game trailer anchors Netflix Tudum event

culture, Entertainment, frankenstein, Knives Out series, netflix, Netflix Tudum, squid game, Stranger Things S5, streaming television, Trailers / Shannon Garcia / June 2, 2025

Also: Wednesday S2 sneak peek, Stranger Things S5 premiere date, Frankenstein teaser, more Benoit Blanc.

Squid Game returns this month for its third and final season. Credit: Netflix

Netflix held its Tudum Global Fan Event in Los Angeles this weekend to showcase its upcoming slate of programming. Among the highlights: the official trailer for the third and final season of Squid Game, the first six minutes of Wednesday S2, a teaser for Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, and date announcements for the fifth and final season of Stranger Things, as well as Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.

(Some spoilers below.)

Squid Game S3

As previously reported, Squid Game‘s first season followed Seong Gi-hun (Lee Jung-Jae), a down-on-his-luck gambler who has little left to lose when he agrees to play children’s playground games against 455 other players for money. The twist? If you lose a game, you die. If you cheat, you die. And if you win, you might also die. In the S1 finale, Gi-hun faced off against fellow finalist and childhood friend Cho Sang-woo (Park Hae-soo) in the titular “squid game.” He won their fight but refused to kill his friend. Sang-woo instead stabbed himself in the neck, leaving Gi-hun the guilt-ridden winner.

S2 was set three years later. Gi-hun successfully finagled his way back into the game, intent on revenge against the Front Man (Lee Byung-hun). Meanwhile, Front Man’s police officer brother, Jun-ho (Wi Ha-joon), hired mercenaries to track down the island where the game is staged. Alliances formed and shifted as the games proceeded, with betrayals galore, culminating in the loss of Gi-hun’s friend and ally Player 390 and a cliffhanger ending.

Series creator Hwang Dong-hyuk conceived of S2 and S3 as a single season, but there were too many episodes, so he split them over two seasons. Back in January we got our first glimpse of S3 when Netflix released a 15-second teaser on X, introducing a brand-new killer doll dubbed Chul-su—similar to the giant “Red Light, Green Light” doll Young-hee. Per the official premise:

A failed rebellion, the death of a friend, and a secret betrayal. Picking up in the aftermath of Season 2’s bloody cliffhanger, the third and final season of Netflix’s most popular series finds Gi-hun, a.k.a. Player 456, at his lowest point yet. But the Squid Game stops for no one, so Gi-hun will be forced to make some important choices in the face of overwhelming despair as he and the surviving players are thrust into deadlier games that test everyone’s resolve. With each round, their choices lead to increasingly grave consequences. Meanwhile, In-ho resumes his role as Front Man to welcome the mysterious VIPs, and his brother Jun-ho continues his search for the elusive island, unaware there’s a traitor in their midst. Will Gi-hun make the right decisions, or will Front Man finally break his spirit?

The third season of Squid Game drops on Netflix on June 27, 2025.

Wednesday S2

Star Jenna Ortega put her own stamp on the iconic title character in the first season of Wednesday. At Tudum, Netflix introduced footage of S2’s first six minutes with a performance by Lady Gaga, who emerged from a coffin to perform a couple of spooky numbers—including “Bloody Mary” from Born This Way. (We can thank a viral video featuring the tune set to Wednesday’s fantastic S1 dancing sequence for that.)

As previously reported, along with Ortega, most of the main cast is returning for S2, including Emma Myers as Enid, and Joy Sunday as Bianca. Reprising their roles: Luis Guzman and Catherine Zeta-Jones as Gomez and Morticia Addams; Isaac Ordonez as Pugsley Addams; Victor Dorobantu as Thing; Fred Armisen as Uncle Fester; Luyanda Unati Lewis-Nyawo as Deputy Ritchie Santiago; Hunter Doohan as Tyler Galpin, revealed as a murderous Hyde in the S1 finale; and Jamie McShane as Donovan Galpin, the Jericho sheriff and Tyler’s father (McShane is a guest this season).

We’ll miss Gwendoline Christie’s Principal Larissa Weems and Christina Ricci’s diabolical botany teacher, Marilyn Thornhill (RIP to both), but at least we’re getting the fabulous Joanna Lumley as Hester Frump, Morticia’s mother. Other new cast members include Billie Piper as Capri, Steve Buscemi as new Nevermore principle Barry Dort, and Evie Templeton, Owen Painter, and Noah Tyler in as-yet-undisclosed roles. Bonus: Lady Gaga will make a guest appearance in the show, and, as we see in the new footage, Haley Joel Osment makes a cameo.

Wednesday S2 will air in two installments. Part 1 debuts August 6, 2025. Part 2 is coming on September 3, 2025.

Stranger Things S5

It’s been a long, wild ride with the plucky residents of Hawkins, but we’re finally approaching the ultimate showdown against the dark force that has plagued the town since S1. The fifth season will have eight episodes and each one will be looong—akin to eight feature-length films.

In addition to the returning main cast, Amybeth McNulty and Gabriella Pizzolo are back as Vicki and Dustin’s girlfriend, Suzie, respectively, with Jamie Campbell Bower reprising his role as the ultimate Big Bad, now known as Vecna. Linda Hamilton joins the cast as Dr. Kay, along with Nell Fisher as Holly Wheeler, Jake Connelly as Derek Turnbow, and Alex Breaux as Lt. Akers

S4 ended with Vecna opening the gate that allowed the Upside Down to leak into Hawkins. We’re getting a time jump for S5, but in a way we’re coming full circle, since the events coincide with the third anniversary of Will’s original disappearance in S1. Per the official premise:

The fall of 1987. Hawkins is scarred by the opening of the Rifts, and our heroes are united by a single goal: find and kill Vecna. But he has vanished—his whereabouts and plans unknown. Complicating their mission, the government has placed the town under military quarantine and intensified its hunt for Eleven, forcing her back into hiding. As the anniversary of Will’s disappearance approaches, so does a heavy, familiar dread. The final battle is looming—and with it, a darkness more powerful and more deadly than anything they’ve faced before. To end this nightmare, they’ll need everyone—the full party—standing together, one last time.

The fifth and final season of Stranger Things will drop in not one, not two, but three installments, because apparently Netflix wants to be as annoying as possible. Volume 1 premieres on November 26, 2025; Volume 2 drops on Christmas Day, December 25, 2025; and the series finale will air on New Year’s Eve, December 31, 2025.

Frankenstein

Oscar-wining director Guillermo del Toro has been dreaming of adapting Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein for the big screen for more than a decade. There have been so many adaptations of Shelley’s novel, of varying quality, and even more reinventions and homages (cf. Poor Things). We finally have the first teaser for del Toro’s take, and it’s as sumptuously horrifying and visually rich as one would expect from the man who made such films as Pan’s Labyrinth and The Shape of Water.

Per the official premise: “A brilliant but egotistical scientist brings a creature to life in a monstrous experiment that ultimately leads to the undoing of both the creator and his tragic creation.” The events take place in 19th century Eastern Europe. Oscar Isaac stars as Victor Frankenstein, with Jacob Elordi playing the monster. Christopher Waltz plays Dr. Pretorious, who hopes to continue in Victor’s footsteps by tracking his monster—who, it turns out, did not die in a fire 40 years before.

The cast also includes Mia Goth as Victor’s fiancee, Elizabeth; Felix Kammerer as Williams; Lars Mikkelsen as Captain Anderson; David Bradley as a blind man; and Ralph Inseon as Professor Kempre. Charles Dance will also appear in an as-yet-undisclosed role.

Frankenstein premieres on Netflix in November 2025.

Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery

Rian Johnson’s Knives Out series of films is still going strong, with the third installment featuring Daniel Craig’s languorously brilliant detective, Benoit Blanc, slated to premiere a couple of weeks before Christmas. It’s called Wake Up Dead Man, a title that pays homage to the 1997 U2 song of the same name.

Johnson is playing his cards close to the chest about the plot details. But we do know he’s assembled another all-star cast of murderous suspects: Josh O’Connor, Glenn Close, Josh Brolin, Mila Kunis, Jeremy Renner—whose “Renning Hot” chili pepper sauce featured prominently in Glass Onion—Kerry Washington, Andrew Scott, Cailee Spaeny, Daryl McCormack, and Thomas Haden Church.

Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery drops on Netflix on December 12, 2025—or if you want to be all Benoit Blanc about it, XII.XII.MMXXV.

Squid Game trailer anchors Netflix Tudum event Read More »

It was probably always going to end this way for Amazon’s Wheel of Time show

Amazon, Amazon Prime, culture, the wheel of time / DJ Henderson / May 28, 2025

Opinion: Wider TV trends helped kill a show that was starting to live up to its promise.

Moiraine contemplates The Blight. Credit: Amazon Studios

Late on Friday, Amazon announced that it was canceling its TV adaptation of Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series, after several uncomfortable weeks of silence that followed the show’s third season finale.

Fans of the series can take some cold comfort in the fact that it apparently wasn’t an easy decision to make. But as we speculated in our write-up of what ended up being the show’s series finale, an expensive show with a huge cast, tons of complicated costuming and effects, and extensive location shooting only makes mathematical sense if it’s a megahit, and The Wheel of Time was never a megahit.

Adapting the unadaptable

I was sad about the cancellation announcement because I believe this season was the one where the show found its footing, both as an adaptation of a complex book series and as a fun TV show in its own right. But I wasn’t surprised by it. The only thing I found surprising was that it took this long to happen.

Two things conspired to make it impossible for this Wheel of Time show to ever reach the Last Battle. One has to do with the source material itself; the other has to do with the way the TV business has changed since Game of Thrones premiered in 2011.

The Wheel of Time actively resists adaptation. It’s a sprawling 14-book series spanning dozens of named point-of-view characters and impossibly dense politics. And it even spans multiple eras stylistically—the early books were more Tolkien-esque in their focus on small bands of adventurers and a limited number of perspectives, where later books could go for multiple chapters without putting you in the head of one of the series’ half-dozen-ish main protagonists. And even among the series’ die-hard fans, most will admit that there are storylines, characters, or entire books that feel inessential or annoying or repetitive or sloggy or wheel-spinning.

Any adaptation would need to find a way to stay true to the story that the books were telling, and to marry the tone and pacing of the early, middle, and late-series books, while wrestling with the realities of a different medium (in particular, you cannot realistically pay for infinite episodes or pay infinite cast members, especially for a live-action show).

Image of the battle of the Two Rivers — By season 3, the show had become adept at translating big book moments for the screen.

That high degree of difficulty was surely one reason why it took someone so long to decide to tackle The Wheel of Time, even in the post-Peter Jackson, post-Harry Potter, post-Marvel Cinematic Universe, post-Game of Thrones creative landscape where nerd-coded sci-fi and fantasy were suddenly cool, where multi-part book adaptations were drawing dollars and eyeballs, and where convoluted interconnected stories could be billion-dollar businesses. The only stab anyone took at an adaptation before Amazon happened a full decade ago, when a fly-by-night production company aired a hastily shot adaptation of the first book’s prologue in an apparent attempt to keep the TV rights from expiring.

It’s also what makes the cancellation news so much more frustrating—over three seasons, showrunner Rafe Judkins and the cast and crew of the show became adept at adapting the unadaptable. Yes, the story and the characters had changed in a lot of major ways. Yes, the short eight-episode seasons made for frenetic pacing and overstuffed episodes. But if you grit your teeth a bit and push through the show’s mess of a first season, you hit a series that seemed to know what must-hit scenes needed to be shown; which parts of the books were skippable or could be combined with other moments; which parts of later books to pull forward to streamline the story without making those moments feel rushed or unearned. It was imperfect, but it was a true adaptation—a reworking of a story for a much different medium that seemed to know how to keep the essence of the story intact.

Ambition meets reality

Image of Rand trying to do something with the Power that cannot be done — Like Rand al’Thor struggling with the One Power, *The Wheel of Time* struggled against the realities of the current TV landscape. Credit: Prime/Amazon MGM Studios

The thing that doomed this particular Wheel of Time production from the start was the sky-high expectations that Amazon had for it. Both Wheel of Time and the heartbreakingly bland Rings of Power were born of Jeff Bezos’ desire to find his own Game of Thrones, which became an unexpected smash-hit success that dominated the cultural conversation through the 2010s. Most TV shows either launch strongly before slowly fading, or they build an audience over a few seasons and then fade after reaching their peak. Game of Thrones defied these trends, and each new season drew a larger and larger viewership even as the show’s quality (arguably) dipped over time.

Asking Wheel of Time to replicate that success would be a tall order for any television show in any era—pop culture is littered with shows that have tried and failed to clone another network’s successful formula. But it’s an especially difficult hurdle to clear in the fractured 2020s TV landscape.

Streaming TV’s blank check era—which ran roughly from Netflix’s introduction of its first original shows in 2013 to 2022, when Netflix reported its first big dip in subscribers just as a long era of low-interest lending was coming to an end—used to give shows a ton of runway and plenty of seasons to tell their stories. Shows like Orange is the New Black or BoJack Horseman that found some modicum of critical acclaim and ratings success tended to get renewed multiple times, and six or seven-season runs were common.

A commitment to reviving old critically beloved bubble shows like Arrested Development, Community, Futurama, and Gilmore Girls also sent a message: Freed from the restrictive economics of the Old TV Model and fueled by the promise of infinite growth, we can make whatever TV we want!

Those days are mostly gone now (except perhaps at Apple TV+, which continues to leverage its parent company’s deep pockets to throw gobs of money at any actor or IP with a moderately recognizable name). In the two years since TV streamers began cutting back in earnest, industry analysts have observed a consistent trend toward shorter seasons of fewer episodes and fewer renewals for existing shows.

Those trends hit at the exact wrong moment for The Wheel of Time, which was constantly straining against the bonds of its eight-episode seasons. It’s impossible to say empirically whether longer seasons would have made for a better show, and whether that “better show” could have achieved the kind of word-of-mouth success it would have needed to meet Amazon’s expectations. But speaking anecdotally as someone who was just beginning to recommend the show to people who weren’t hardcore book readers, the density and pacing were two major barriers to entry. And even the most truncated possible version of the story would have needed at least six or seven seasons to wrap up in anything resembling a satisfactory way, based on the pace that was set in the first three seasons.

The end of Time

The arms of the Car'a'carn — *Wheel of Time* fans didn’t get to see everything translated from book to screen. But we did get to see a lot of things. Credit: Prime/Amazon MGM Studios

Tellingly, the Wheel of Time‘s creative team hasn’t released faux-optimistic boilerplate statements about trying to shop the show to other networks, the kind of statements you sometimes see after a show is canceled before its creators are done with it. The same economics that made Amazon drop the show also make it nearly impossible to sell to anyone else.

And so The Wheel of Time joins TV’s long list of unfinished stories. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time. But this is an ending.

Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue.

It was probably always going to end this way for Amazon’s Wheel of Time show Read More »

College Board keeps apologizing for screwing up digital SAT and AP tests

Ap exams, college board, culture, SAT / Kelly Newman / May 24, 2025

Don’t worry about the “mission-driven not-for-profit” College Board—it’s drowning in cash. The US group, which administers the SAT and AP tests to college-bound students, paid its CEO $2.38 million in total compensation in 2023 (the most recent year data is available). The senior VP in charge of AP programs made $694,662 in total compensation, while the senior VP for Technology Strategy made $765,267 in total compensation.

Given such eye-popping numbers, one would have expected the College Board’s transition to digital exams to go smoothly, but it continues to have issues.

Just last week, the group’s AP Psychology exam was disrupted nationally when the required “Bluebook” testing app couldn’t be accessed by many students. Because the College Board shifted to digital-only exams for 28 of its 36 AP courses beginning this year, no paper-based backup options were available. The only “solution” was to wait quietly in a freezing gymnasium, surrounded by a hundred other stressed-out students, to see if College Board could get its digital act together.

I speak, as you may have gathered, from family experience; one of my kids got to experience the incident first-hand. I was first clued into the problem by an e-mail from my school, which announced “a nationwide Bluebook outage (the testing application used for all digital AP exams)” for all AP Psych testers. Within an hour, many students were finally able to log in and begin the test, but other students had scheduling conflicts and were therefore “dismissed from the testing room” and given slots during the “late test day” or “during the exception testing window.”

On Reddit, the r/APStudents board melted down in predictable fashion. One post asked the question on everyone’s mind:

HOW DO U NOT PREPARE THE SERVERS FOR THE EXAM WHEN U KNOW WE’RE TAKING THE EXAM HELLO?????? BE SO FR

i was locked in and studied like hell for this ap psych exam ts pmo like what the actual f—nugget???

Now, I’m old enough not to know what “BE SO FR,” “TS,” or “PMO” mean, but the term “f—nugget” comes through loud and clear, and I plan to add it to my vocabulary.

College Board keeps apologizing for screwing up digital SAT and AP tests Read More »