culture – Page 5

Conspiracy theorists don’t realize they’re on the fringe

cognitive bias, conspiracy theories, culture, false consensus, misinformation, psychology, Science / Shannon Garcia / July 23, 2025

Gordon Pennycook: “It might be one of the biggest false consensus effects that’s been observed.”

Credit: Aurich Lawson / Thinkstock

Belief in conspiracy theories is often attributed to some form of motivated reasoning: People want to believe a conspiracy because it reinforces their worldview, for example, or doing so meets some deep psychological need, like wanting to feel unique. However, it might also be driven by overconfidence in their own cognitive abilities, according to a paper published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. The authors were surprised to discover that not only are conspiracy theorists overconfident, they also don’t realize their beliefs are on the fringe, massively overestimating by as much as a factor of four how much other people agree with them.

“I was expecting the overconfidence finding,” co-author Gordon Pennycook, a psychologist at Cornell University, told Ars. “If you’ve talked to someone who believes conspiracies, it’s self-evident. I did not expect them to be so ready to state that people agree with them. I thought that they would overestimate, but I didn’t think that there’d be such a strong sense that they are in the majority. It might be one of the biggest false consensus effects that’s been observed.”

In 2015, Pennycook made headlines when he co-authored a paper demonstrating how certain people interpret “pseudo-profound bullshit” as deep observations. Pennycook et al. were interested in identifying individual differences between those who are susceptible to pseudo-profound BS and those who are not and thus looked at conspiracy beliefs, their degree of analytical thinking, religious beliefs, and so forth.

They presented several randomly generated statements, containing “profound” buzzwords, that were grammatically correct but made no sense logically, along with a 2014 tweet by Deepak Chopra that met the same criteria. They found that the less skeptical participants were less logical and analytical in their thinking and hence much more likely to consider these nonsensical statements as being deeply profound. That study was a bit controversial, in part for what was perceived to be its condescending tone, along with questions about its methodology. But it did snag Pennycook et al. a 2016 Ig Nobel Prize.

Last year we reported on another Pennycook study, presenting results from experiments in which an AI chatbot engaged in conversations with people who believed at least one conspiracy theory. That study showed that the AI interaction significantly reduced the strength of those beliefs, even two months later. The secret to its success: the chatbot, with its access to vast amounts of information across an enormous range of topics, could precisely tailor its counterarguments to each individual. “The work overturns a lot of how we thought about conspiracies, that they’re the result of various psychological motives and needs,” Pennycook said at the time.

Miscalibrated from reality

Pennycook has been working on this new overconfidence study since 2018, perplexed by observations indicating that people who believe in conspiracies also seem to have a lot of faith in their cognitive abilities—contradicting prior research finding that conspiracists are generally more intuitive. To investigate, he and his co-authors conducted eight separate studies that involved over 4,000 US adults.

The assigned tasks were designed in such a way that participants’ actual performance and how they perceived their performance were unrelated. For example, in one experiment, they were asked to guess the subject of an image that was largely obscured. The subjects were then asked direct questions about their belief (or lack thereof) concerning several key conspiracy claims: the Apollo Moon landings were faked, for example, or that Princess Diana’s death wasn’t an accident. Four of the studies focused on testing how subjects perceived others’ beliefs.

The results showed a marked association between subjects’ tendency to be overconfident and belief in conspiracy theories. And while a majority of participants believed a conspiracy’s claims just 12 percent of the time, believers thought they were in the majority 93 percent of the time. This suggests that overconfidence is a primary driver of belief in conspiracies.

It’s not that believers in conspiracy theories are massively overconfident; there is no data on that, because the studies didn’t set out to quantify the degree of overconfidence, per Pennycook. Rather, “They’re overconfident, and they massively overestimate how much people agree with them,” he said.

Ars spoke with Pennycook to learn more.

Ars Technica: Why did you decide to investigate overconfidence as a contributing factor to believing conspiracies?

Gordon Pennycook: There’s a popular sense that people believe conspiracies because they’re dumb and don’t understand anything, they don’t care about the truth, and they’re motivated by believing things that make them feel good. Then there’s the academic side, where that idea molds into a set of theories about how needs and motivations drive belief in conspiracies. It’s not someone falling down the rabbit hole and getting exposed to misinformation or conspiratorial narratives. They’re strolling down: “I like it over here. This appeals to me and makes me feel good.”

Believing things that no one else agrees with makes you feel unique. Then there’s various things I think that are a little more legitimate: People join communities and there’s this sense of belongingness. How that drives core beliefs is different. Someone may stop believing but hang around in the community because they don’t want to lose their friends. Even with religion, people will go to church when they don’t really believe. So we distinguish beliefs from practice.

What we observed is that they do tend to strongly believe these conspiracies despite the fact that there’s counter evidence or a lot of people disagree. What would lead that to happen? It could be their needs and motivations, but it could also be that there’s something about the way that they think where it just doesn’t occur to them that they could be wrong about it. And that’s where overconfidence comes in.

Ars Technica: What makes this particular trait such a powerful driving force?

Gordon Pennycook: Overconfidence is one of the most important core underlying components, because if you’re overconfident, it stops you from really questioning whether the thing that you’re seeing is right or wrong, and whether you might be wrong about it. You have an almost moral purity of complete confidence that the thing you believe is true. You cannot even imagine what it’s like from somebody else’s perspective. You couldn’t imagine a world in which the things that you think are true could be false. Having overconfidence is that buffer that stops you from learning from other people. You end up not just going down the rabbit hole, you’re doing laps down there.

Overconfidence doesn’t have to be learned, parts of it could be genetic. It also doesn’t have to be maladaptive. It’s maladaptive when it comes to beliefs. But you want people to think that they will be successful when starting new businesses. A lot of them will fail, but you need some people in the population to take risks that they wouldn’t take if they were thinking about it in a more rational way. So it can be optimal at a population level, but maybe not at an individual level.

Ars Technica: Is this overconfidence related to the well-known Dunning-Kruger effect?

Gordon Pennycook: It’s because of Dunning-Kruger that we had to develop a new methodology to measure overconfidence, because the people who are the worst at a task are the worst at knowing that they’re the worst at the task. But that’s because the same things that you use to do the task are the things you use to assess how good you are at the task. So if you were to give someone a math test and they’re bad at math, they’ll appear overconfident. But if you give them a test of assessing humor and they’re good at that, they won’t appear overconfident. That’s about the task, not the person.

So we have tasks where people essentially have to guess, and it’s transparent. There’s no reason to think that you’re good at the task. In fact, people who think they’re better at the task are not better at it, they just think they are. They just have this underlying kind of sense that they can do things, they know things, and that’s the kind of thing that we’re trying to capture. It’s not specific to a domain. There are lots of reasons why you could be overconfident in a particular domain. But this is something that’s an actual trait that you carry into situations. So when you’re scrolling online and come up with these ideas about how the world works that don’t make any sense, it must be everybody else that’s wrong, not you.

Ars Technica: Overestimating how many people agree with them seems to be at odds with conspiracy theorists’ desire to be unique.

Gordon Pennycook: In general, people who believe conspiracies often have contrary beliefs. We’re working with a population where coherence is not to be expected. They say that they’re in the majority, but it’s never a strong majority. They just don’t think that they’re in a minority when it comes to the belief. Take the case of the Sandy Hook conspiracy, where adherents believe it was a false flag operation. In one sample, 8 percent of people thought that this was true. That 8 percent thought 61 percent of people agreed with them.

So they’re way off. They really, really miscalibrated. But they don’t say 90 percent. It’s 60 percent, enough to be special, but not enough to be on the fringe where they actually are. I could have asked them to rank how smart they are relative to others, or how unique they thought their beliefs were, and they would’ve answered high on that. But those are kind of mushy self-concepts. When you ask a specific question that has an objectively correct answer in terms of the percent of people in the sample that agree with you, it’s not close.

Ars Technica: How does one even begin to combat this? Could last year’s AI study point the way?

Gordon Pennycook: The AI debunking effect works better for people who are less overconfident. In those experiments, very detailed, specific debunks had a much bigger effect than people expected. After eight minutes of conversation, a quarter of the people who believed the thing didn’t believe it anymore, but 75 percent still did. That’s a lot. And some of them, not only did they still believe it, they still believed it to the same degree. So no one’s cracked that. Getting any movement at all in the aggregate was a big win.

Here’s the problem. You can’t have a conversation with somebody who doesn’t want to have the conversation. In those studies, we’re paying people, but they still get out what they put into the conversation. If you don’t really respond or engage, then our AI is not going to give you good responses because it doesn’t know what you’re thinking. And if the person is not willing to think. … This is why overconfidence is such an overarching issue. The only alternative is some sort of propagandistic sit-them-downs with their eyes open and try to de-convert them. But you can’t really convert someone who doesn’t want to be converted. So I’m not sure that there is an answer. I think that’s just the way that humans are.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2025. DOI: 10.1177/01461672251338358 (About DOIs).

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.

Conspiracy theorists don’t realize they’re on the fringe Read More »

LA’s Museum of Jurassic Technology damaged by fire

culture, Lawrence Weschler, museum of jurassic technology, museums, Science, wunderkammers / 9u50fv / July 22, 2025

Not all of the artifacts housed within the MJT’s labyrinthine space are, shall we say, truly historical; Wilson has a sense of humor, a vivid imagination, and a cheeky fondness for the absurd. Lawrence Weschler tracked down the provenance (where relevant) of the exhibits in his 1996 book, Mr. Wilson’s Cabinet of Wonder: Pronged Ants, Horned Humans, Mice on Toast, and Other Marvels of Jurassic Technology. (It’s a delightful read.)

Weschler’s blog provides the most detailed account of what happened when the fire broke out on the night of July 8. Wilson, who lives out back, saw what was happening, grabbed a couple of fire extinguishers, and ran to the gift shop entry hall, where he emptied the canisters into what Wilson describes as “a ferocious column of flame lapping up the far street-facing corner wall.”

That wasn’t enough to douse the fire, but fortunately, Wilson’s daughter and son-in-law soon arrived with a much bigger extinguisher and doused the flames. Firefighters showed up shortly thereafter to stamp out any lingering embers and told Wilson, “Just one more minute and you’d likely have lost the whole building.” Wilson described the smoke damage “as if a thin creamy brown liquid had been evenly poured over all the surfaces—the walls, the vitrines, the ceiling, the carpets, and eyepieces, everything.”

Staff and volunteers have been working to repair the damage ever since, with smoke damage repairs being particularly labor-intensive. Weschler closed his blog post with a call for donations to the MJT’s general fund to help the cash-strapped museum weather this particular storm, praising the MJT as “one of the most truly sublime institutions in the country.”

LA’s Museum of Jurassic Technology damaged by fire Read More »

X-Men at 25 is more relevant than ever

20th Century Studios, Bryan Singer, culture, film anniversaries, X-Men / 9u50fv / July 21, 2025

“Mankind has always feared what it doesn’t understand.” Plus: our seven favorite scenes.

Credit: 20th Century Studios

Twenty-five years ago, X-Men became a summer blockbuster and effectively re-energized a then-flagging market for superhero movies, which have dominated the industry (for better and worse) ever since. It’s still a vastly entertaining film, with great characters, a zippy pace, and plenty of action. And its broader themes still strongly resonate with viewers today.

(Many spoilers below.)

In the mid-1990s, the popularity of the animated X-Men TV series caught the attention of 20th Century Fox (now 20th Century Studios), which purchased the rights from a cash-strapped Marvel Comics and hired Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects) to direct. At the time, the project was perceived by some as a bit risky, given waning Hollywood interest in the genre after 1997’s disastrously campy Batman and Robin. But the gamble paid off: X-Men was a major hit, spawning its own franchise and ultimately the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The film’s central conflict rests on two former friends. Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellan), aka Erik Lehnsherr, are fellow mutants who find themselves at odds over how best to respond to the growing anti-mutant bigotry among humans. Charles, who runs a private school for mutant children, sees the good in humans and believes they can peacefully coexist; Magneto believes mutants are the future and humans should go extinct—preferably with his help. He has organized the Brotherhood of Mutants to further that aim: Mystique (Rebecca Romijn), Sabretooth (Tyler Mane), and Toad (Ray Park).

Charles in turn has his X-Men: Storm (Halle Berry), Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), and Cyclops (James Marsden), eventually adding a reluctant Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) to their ranks. Teenage mutant Rogue (Anna Paquin) joins the school and becomes a target for Magneto, since her mutation enables her to absorb other people’s life force and memories—and powers, in the case of the mutants. Together they must foil Magneto’s plan to forcibly mutate humans via radiation (even if it kills them) and convince a hostile US government that most mutants do not pose a threat.

There’s much to love about this film, including plenty of memorable standout scenes; seven of our favorites are featured below. It’s got stellar casting, snappy dialogue, and breaks up the action with quieter character moments that advance the story without slowing the pace. X-Men also takes pains to establish key relationships: Charles and Magneto, Rogue and Wolverine, and the romantic triangle of Jean, Cyclops, and Wolverine. We care about these characters: their isolation, their pain at being feared and rejected because they’re different, and the different ways they process those feelings.

Despite humanity’s poor treatment of them, our mutant heroes are still willing to risk their lives to save an ungrateful humanity. That’s what makes them heroes, even if it might be easier to believe that Magneto and the Brotherhood’s open hostility to humans is justified. (“Mankind has always feared what it doesn’t understand.”) X-Men is hardly subtle about delivering its core message. The film pits bigotry and fear towards a targeted “other” vs. striving for acceptance and peaceful coexistence, unapologetically championing the latter. If any of that sounds suspiciously “woke”—well, as with Superman, it’s not the film that’s changed.

Without further ado, here are our seven favorite scenes in X-Men:

Young Eric at Auschwitz

X-Men wastes no time setting up its primary theme. The very first scene takes place in Nazi-occupied Poland in 1944, where a young Erik Lehnsherr and his parents are being herded into a concentration camp by soldiers in the rain. Erik is separated from his parents, and the sight of his wailing mother being dragged away causes a distressed Erik to try to rejoin them. He’s restrained by soldiers, and his intensifying emotions unleash his mutant ability. He can manipulate magnetic fields, bending the metal gates keeping him from his parents into an “X” before the soldiers knock him unconscious.

Erik becomes Magneto, and those early experiences in the concentration camp indelibly shaped his character and world view, fueling his nefarious plans for mutants to displace humans as the dominant species on Earth. Lest we miss the point, the very next scene is Charles Xavier and Magneto listening to anti-mutant members of Congress calling for a Mutant Registration Act. Magneto insists that he knows firsthand where all this will inevitably lead; Charles counters that humans have changed for the better, perfectly encapsulating how these former friends turn into reluctant adversaries.

Wolverine’s cage fight

dark haired man with sideburns and claws coming out of his hands holds one against the throat of an attacked and points the other at a second attacker — Credit: 20th Century Studios

We first meet Wolverine at a dive bar in a remote wintry outpost, where a runaway Rogue also finds herself after getting a lift from a truck driver. He’s earning a few extra bucks by taking on all-comers in a series of no-holds-barred cage matches—and easily emerging victorious each time. Rogue arrives just in time to see the latest challenger stride into the cage with all the unearned confidence of a man who has been drinking heavily for hours. “Whatever you do don’t hit him in the balls,” the ref warns. Sure, the match is anything goes, “but he’ll take it personal.”

And Wolverine does, knocking the man out cold. Alas, the defeated opponent is also a sore loser, showing up after closing to confront Wolverine. “No man takes a beating like that and walks away,” he says, adding, “I know what you are.” He pulls a knife and gets Wolverine’s adamantium claws at his throat in response. Now that’s how you introduce a central character.

Mystique kidnaps a senator

Senator Robert Kelly (Bruce Davison) is the main political antagonist in X-Men, hell-bent on passing that draconian mutant registration bill. He does not see mutants as people deserving of basic civil rights, but as “weapons in our schools…. If it were up to me I’d lock them all away.” (Naturally he’s also an isolationist, concerned only with the “mutant problem” in America.)

Little does he know that he’s not actually talking to his loyal assistant, but to Mystique in disguise—with Toad piloting the helicopter he’s just boarded. He’s shocked when she transforms into her beautiful blue-skinned self: “You know people like you are the reason I was afraid to go to school as a child?” Then she kicks him unconscious and she and Toad transport him to Magneto’s secret hideout. Honestly, Kelly had it coming. And things only get worse for him from here.

Wolverine accidentally stabs Rogue

Wolverine and Rogue’s relationship is the beating heart of X-Men. He feels protective of her, as an older brother or an uncle might, but soon learns that she’s not as defenseless as she seems. Hearing a distressed Wolverine talking in his sleep during a nightmare, Rogue goes to his bed to wake him—and he skewers her with his claws before he realizes what he’s doing.

As he calls for help, Rogue puts her ungloved hand to his face, “borrowing” his mutant ability to heal herself. But it sends Wolverine into a seizure, just like the first boy who kissed her back in her hometown. It’s a compelling scene that not only tells us more about Rogue’s extreme mutant gift, but also strengthens her bond with Wolverine; she shared his power, however briefly, and admits at one point she can still feel him inside her head. Plus it serves as a handy catalyst for the next phase of Magneto’s master plan.

Charles vs. Magneto at the train station

Storm and Cyclops catch up with a runaway Rogue at the local train station, only to be attacked by Sabretooth and Toad. They are there to retrieve Rogue for Magneto (who has already taken Wolverine out of the equation on the train). Coming out of the station with Magneto, they are met with a whole lot of law enforcement. Magneto makes short shrift of them—”You homo sapiens and your guns”—turning the firearms onto the assembled officers.

Charles attempts to intervene by telepathically communicating through Toad and Sabretooth, but Magneto fires just one gun and slows down the bullet as it starts to drive into an officer’s forehead. Charles realizes he has lost this standoff and lets Magneto escape, with the latter issuing a parting shot: “Still unwilling to make sacrifices. That’s what makes you weak.” We know, of course, that the moment demonstrates Charles’ admirable strength of character and the goal toward which all true heroes should aspire.

Senator Kelly dissolves

Senator Kelly (Bruce Davison) is turned into a mutant by Magneto. 20th Century Studios

Poor Senator Kelly. After Magneto blasts him with radiation to turn him into a mutant, he manages to escape, turning up at a local beach stark naked with translucent skin—just like the jelly fish a little boy has been tormenting seconds before. (Stan Lee makes a cameo as one of the shocked beachgoers.) Kelly can’t go to a hospital, so he finds his way to Charles’ academy to get help. But there’s nothing Charles can do; the senator’s body is rejecting the radiation-induced mutation at an accelerating rate.

When Storm comes in to check on him, he’s started leaking water all over the table, and begs her not to leave him alone. Kelly asks if she hates normal people, and when Storm admits that sometimes she does, he asks why. “I suppose I’m afraid of them,” she says. “I think you’ve got one less person to be afraid of,” Kelly responds, right before his body rapidly bloats and then dissolves into a watery slurry. It’s a great scene not just for his revelatory moment with Storm—seeing a mutant, finally, as a person rather than a weapon—but also for the special effects achievement at a time when the technology for rendering fluids like water was still very much in its infancy.

Wolverine saves Rogue

The big climactic battle is waged inside the Statue of Liberty, as the X-Men face off against the Brotherhood while Magneto straps Rogue into his radiation machine housed inside the torch (of course). The objective: targeting the World Summit leaders assembled on nearby Ellis Island and turning them into mutants. “Your sacrifice will mean our survival,” Magneto assures her—although Wolverine rightly points out that if he were truly committed to the cause, he’d have sacrificed himself instead of temporarily transferring his power to Rogue.

Eventually the X-Men prevail, and Wolverine destroys the machine, cutting Rogue free. But it might be too late: when he puts his hand to her skin, nothing happens. A grief-stricken Wolverine cradles her body in his arms with his face against hers—only for her power to suddenly kick in. As Rogue revives by draining his healing ability, every injury Wolverine sustained in the preceding battle becomes visible and he collapses, sacrificing himself to save her.

Okay, he eventually recovers, too, because we need our happy ending. But it’s a powerfully intimate moment that builds on everything that came before—and helps fuel what comes after.

X-Men at 25 is more relevant than ever Read More »

After 5 years in development, the Assassin’s Creed TV series is happening

assassin's creed, culture, gaming, netflix, ubisoft / Beth Washington / July 19, 2025

The long-running video game series Assassin’s Creed will get a live-action TV series adaptation. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter report that Netflix has greenlit the series after years of development hell; the intention to produce the series was announced in 2020.

The series had been through multiple creative teams even before it was greenlit, but Netflix settled on two co-showrunners. Roberto Patino, a writer on FX’s Sons of Anarchy and HBO’s Westworld, will join David Wiener, who led Paramount+’s Halo TV series as well as Fear the Walking Dead.

The two released a joint statement with the news that the show is moving forward:

We’ve been fans of Assassin’s Creed since its release in 2007. Every day we work on this show, we come away excited and humbled by the possibilities that Assassin’s Creed opens to us. Beneath the scope, the spectacle, the parkour and the thrills is a baseline for the most essential kind of human story—about people searching for purpose, struggling with questions of identity and destiny and faith. It is about power and violence and sex and greed and vengeance. But more than anything, this is a show about the value of human connection, across cultures, across time. And it’s about what we stand to lose as a species, when those connections break. We’ve got an amazing team behind us with the folks at Ubisoft and our champions at Netflix, and we’re committed to creating something undeniable for fans all over the planet.

Not many details are known about the series, beyond the obvious: like the games, it will follow a shadow war between the rival Templars and Assassins factions fought across centuries and cultures, with characters diving into genetic memory to experience the lives of ancestors who played pivotal roles in the war. There are no public details about characters or casting.

After 5 years in development, the Assassin’s Creed TV series is happening Read More »

Jared Leto is the ultimate soldier in new TRON: Ares trailer

culture, Disney, Trailers, Tron: Ares / Beth Washington / July 18, 2025

San Diego Comic-Con is coming up next week, and Disney is getting ready for its big presentation by releasing a new trailer for TRON: Ares, directed by Joachim Rønning.

(Spoilers for TRON: Legacy below.)

As previously reported, TRON: Legacy ended with Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund), son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) from the original film, preventing the digital world from bleeding into the real world, as planned by the Grid’s malevolent ruling program, Clu. He brought with him Quorra (Olivia Wilde), a naturally occurring isomorphic algorithm targeted for extinction by Clu.

Disney greenlit a third film in the franchise in October 2010, intended to pick up where Legacy left off and follow the adventures of Sam and Quorra as Sam took full control of his father’s company, ENCOM. However, by 2015, the studio had canceled the project, reportedly due to the dismal box office performance of Tomorrowland. By 2020, the project had been revived and reimagined as a standalone reboot rather than a Legacy sequel, although the main AI, Ares, appeared in earlier (pre-reboot) versions of the script. One pandemic and a couple of Hollywood strikes later, the finished film is finally set to hit theaters this fall.

The official premise is succinct: “TRON: Ares follows a highly sophisticated Program, Ares, who is sent from the digital world into the real world on a dangerous mission, marking humankind’s first encounter with A.I. beings.” Jared Leto stars as Ares, with Evan Peters and Greta Lee playing Julian Dillinger and Eve Kim, respectively. The cast also includes Jodie Turner-Smith, Cameron Monaghan, Sarah Desjardins, Hasan Minhaj, Arturo Castro, and Gillian Anderson. Bridges is returning as Kevin Flynn. Nine Inch Nails composed the soundtrack.

Jared Leto is the ultimate soldier in new TRON: Ares trailer Read More »

Fanfic study challenges leading cultural evolution theory

balance theory, cultural evolution, culture, digital humanities, fan fiction, psychology, Science, social sciences / Kelly Newman / July 17, 2025

Fanfic community craves familiarity much more than novelty—but reports greater enjoyment from novelty.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Marvel

It’s widely accepted conventional wisdom that when it comes to creative works—TV shows, films, music, books—consumers crave an optimal balance between novelty and familiarity. What we choose to consume and share with others, in turn, drives cultural evolution.

But what if that conventional wisdom is wrong? An analysis based on data from a massive online fan fiction (fanfic) archive contradicts this so-called “balance theory,” according to a paper published in the journal Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. The fanfic community seems to overwhelmingly prefer more of the same, consistently choosing familiarity over novelty; however, they reported greater overall enjoyment when they took a chance and read something more novel. In short: “Sameness entices, but novelty enchants.”

Strictly speaking, authors have always copied characters and plots from other works (cf. many of William Shakespeare’s plays), although the advent of copyright law complicated matters. Modern fan fiction as we currently think of it arguably emerged with the 1967 publication of the first Star Trek fanzine (Spockanalia), which included spinoff fiction based on the series. Star Trek also spawned the subgenre of slash fiction, when writers began creating stories featuring Kirk and Spock (Kirk/Spock, or K/S) in a romantic (often sexual) relationship.

The advent of the World Wide Web brought fan fiction to the masses, starting with Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists and eventually the development of massive online archives where creators could upload their work to be read and commented upon by readers. The subculture has since exploded; there’s fanfic based on everything from Sherlock Holmes to The X-Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Game of Thrones, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Harry Potter. You name it, there’s probably fanfic about it.

There are also many subgenres within fanfic beyond slash, some of them rather weird, like a magical pregnancy (Mpreg) story in which Sherlock Holmes and Watson fall so much in love with each other that one of them becomes magically pregnant. (One suspects Sherlock would not handle morning sickness very well.) Sometimes fanfic even breaks into the cultural mainstream: E.L. James’ bestselling Fifty Shades of Grey started out as fan fiction set in the world of Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series.

So fanfic is a genuine cultural phenomenon—hence its fascination for Simon DeDeo, a complexity scientist at Carnegie Mellon University and the Santa Fe Institute who studies cultural evolution and the emergence of social hierarchies. (I reported on DeDeo’s work analyzing the archives of London’s Old Bailey in 2014.) While opinion remains split—even among the authors of the original works—as to whether fanfic is a welcome homage to the original works that just might help drive book sales or whether it constitutes a form of copyright infringement, DeDeo enthusiastically embraces the format.

“It’s the dark matter of creativity,” DeDeo told Ars. “I love that it exists. It’s a very non-elitist form. There’s no New York Times bestseller list. It would be hard to name the most famous fan fiction writers. The world building has been done. The characters exist. The plot elements have already been put together. So the bar to entry is lower. Maybe sometime in the 19th century we get a notion of genius and the individual creator, but that’s not really what storytelling has been about for the majority of human history. In that one sense, fan fiction is closer to what we were doing around the campfire.”

spock lying down in sick bay while kirk holds his hand tenderly at his bedside — *Star Trek* arguably spawned contemporary fan fiction—including stories imagining Kirk and Spock as romantic partners. Credit: Paramount Pictures

That’s a boon for fanfic writers, most of whom have non-creative day jobs; fanfic provides them with a creative outlet. Every year, when DeDeo asks students in his classes whether they read and/or write fanfic, a significant percentage always raise their hands. (He once asked a woman about why she wrote slash. Her response: “Because no one was writing porn that I wanted to read.”) In fact, that’s how this current study came about. Co-author Elise Jing is one of DeDeo’s former students with a background in both science and the humanities—and she’s also a fanfic connoisseur.

Give them more of the same

Jing thought (and DeDeo concurred) that the fanfic subculture provided an excellent laboratory for studying cultural evolution. “It’s tough to get students to read a book. They write fan fiction voluntarily. This is stuff they care about writing and care about reading. Nobody gets prestige or power in the larger society from writing fan fiction,” said DeDeo. “This is not a top-down model where Hollywood is producing something and then the fans are consuming it. The fans are producing and consuming so it’s a truly self-contained culture that’s constantly evolving. It’s a pure product consumption cycle. People read it, they bookmark it, they write comments on it, and all that gives us insight into how it’s being received. If you’re a psychologist, you couldn’t pay to get this kind of data.”

Fanfic is a tightly controlled ecosystem, so it lacks many of the confounding factors that make it so difficult to study mainstream cultural works. Also, the fan fiction community is enormous, so the potential datasets are huge. For this study, the authors relied on data from the online Archive of Our Own (AO3), which boasts nearly 9 million users covering more than 70,000 different fandoms and some 15 million individual works. (Sadly, the site has since shut down access to its data over concerns of that data being used to train AI.)

According to DeDeo, the idea was to examine the question of cultural evolution on a population level, rather than on the individual level: “How do these individual things agglomerate to produce the culture? “

Strong positive correlation is found between the response variables except for the Kudos-to-hits ratio. Topic novelty is weakly positively correlated with Kudos-to-hits ratio, but negatively correlated with the other response variables. — Strong positive correlation is found between the response variables except for the Kudos-to-hits ratio. Topic novelty is weakly positively correlated with Kudos-to-hits ratio but negatively correlated with the other response variables. Credit: E. Jing et al., 2025

The results were striking. AO3 members overwhelmingly preferred familiarity in their fan fiction, i.e., more of the same. One notable exception was a short story that was both hugely popular and highly novel. Simply titled “I Am Groot,” the story featured the character from Guardians of the Galaxy. The text is just “I am Groot” repeated 40,000 times—a stroke of genius in that this is entirely consistent with the canonical MCU character, whose entire dialogue consists of those words, with meaning conveyed by shifts of tone and context. But such exceptions proved to be very rare.

“We were so stunned that balance theory wasn’t working,” said DeDeo, who credits Jing with the realization that they were dealing with two distinct pieces of the puzzle: how much is being consumed, and how much people like what they consume, i.e., enjoyment. Their analysis revealed, first, that people really don’t want an optimized mix of familiar and new; they want the same thing over and over again, even within the fanfic community. But when people do make the effort to try something new, they tend to enjoy it more than just consuming more of the same.

In short, “We are anti-balance theory,” said DeDeo. “In biology, for example, you make a small variation in the species and you get micro-evolution. In culture, a minor variation is just less likely to be consumed. So it really is a mystery how we evolve at all culturally; it’s not happening by gradual movement. We can see that there’s novelty. We can see that when people encounter novelty, they enjoy it. But we can’t quite make sense of how these two competing effects work out.”

“This is the great paradox,” said DeDeo. “Culture has to be stable. Without long-term stability, there’s no coherent body of work that can even constitute of culture if every year fan fiction totally changes. That inherent cultural conservatism is in some sense a precondition for culture to exist at all.” Yet culture does evolve, even within the fanfic community.

One possible alternative is some kind of punctuated equilibrium model for cultural evolution, in which things remain stable but undergo occasional leaps forward. “One story about how culture evolves is that eventually, the stuff that’s more enjoyable than what people keep re-consuming somehow becomes accessible to the majority of the community,” said DeDeo. “Novelty might act as a gravitational pull on the center and [over time] some new material gets incorporated into the culture.” He draws an analogy to established tech companies like IBM versus startups, most of which die out; but those few that succeed often push the culture substantially forward.

Perhaps there are two distinct groups of people: those who actively seek out new things and those who routinely click on familiar subject matter because even though their enjoyment might be less, it’s not worth overcoming their inertia to try out something new. Perhaps it is those who seek novelty that sow the seeds of eventual shifts in trends.

“Is it that we’re tired? Is it that we’re lazy? Is this a conflict within a human or within a culture?” said DeDeo. “We don’t know because we only get the raw numbers. If we could track an individual reader to see how they moved between these two spaces, that would be really interesting.”

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2025. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-05166-3 (About DOIs).

Fanfic study challenges leading cultural evolution theory Read More »

Medieval preacher invoked chivalric hero as a meme in sermon

Chaucer, cultural studies, culture, historical archaelogy, history, language history, Literature, medieval literature, Science, textual analysis / 9u50fv / July 16, 2025

It’s the translation of the word “elves” that is central to their new analysis. Based on their consideration of the lines in the context of the sermon (dubbed the Humiliamini sermon) as a whole, Falk and Wade believe the correct translation is “wolves.” The confusion arose, they suggest, because of a scribe’s error while transcribing the sermon: specifically, the letters “y” (“ylves”) and “w” became muddled. The sermon focuses on humility, playing up how humans have been debased since Adam and comparing human behaviors to animals: the cunning deceit of the adder, for example, the pride of lions, the gluttony of pigs, or the plundering of wolves.

the text of the sermon — The text of the sermon. Credit: University of Cambridge

Falk and Wade think translating the word as “wolves” resolves some of the perplexity surrounding Chaucer’s references to Wade. The relevant passage in Troilus and Criseyde concerns Pandarus, uncle to Criseyde, who invites his niece to dinner and regales her with songs and the “tale of Wade,” in hopes of bringing the lovers together. A chivalric romance would serve this purpose better than a Germanic heroic epic evoking “the mythological sphere of giants and monsters,” the authors argue.

The new translation makes more sense of the reference in The Merchant’s Tale, too, in which an old knight argues for marrying a young woman rather than an older one because the latter are crafty and spin fables. The knight thus marries a much younger woman and ends up cuckolded. “The tale becomes, effectively, an origin myth for all women knowing ‘so muchel craft on Wades boot,'” the authors wrote.

And while they acknowledge that the evidence is circumstantial, Falk and Wade think they’ve identified the author of the Humiliamini sermon: late medieval writer Alexander Neckam, or perhaps an acolyte imitating his arguments and writing style.

Review of English Studies, 2025. DOI: 10.1093/res/hgaf038 (About DOIs).

Medieval preacher invoked chivalric hero as a meme in sermon Read More »

Species at 30 makes for a great guilty pleasure

culture, Entertainment, film, film anniversaries, h.r.giger, MGM, Michael Madsen, species / Mike M. / July 14, 2025

Sure, the plot lacks originality, but it’s a solid B movie—and H.R. Giger designed the alien life form.

Earlier this month, Hollywood mourned the passing of Michael Madsen, a gifted actor best known for his critically acclaimed roles in Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill, and Donnie Brasco, among others. Few obituaries have mentioned one of his lesser-known roles: a black ops mercenary hired to help hunt down an escaped human/alien hybrid in 1995’s Species. The sci-fi thriller turns 30 this year, and while it garnered decidedly mixed reviews upon release, the film holds up quite well as a not-quite-campy B monster movie that makes for a great guilty pleasure.

(Many spoilers below.)

Screenwriter Dennis Feldman (The Golden Child) was partially inspired by an Arthur C. Clarke article discussing how the odds were slim that an extraterrestrial craft would ever visit Earth, given the great distances that would need to be traversed (assuming that traveling faster than the speed of light would be highly unlikely). Feldman was intrigued by the prospect of making extraterrestrial contact via information— specifically, alien instructions on how to build an instrument that could talk to terrestrial humans.

That instrument wouldn’t be mechanical but organic, enabling an extraterrestrial visitor to adapt to Earth via combined DNA. Furthermore, rather than viewing projects like SETI or the Voyager missions—both of which sent transmissions containing information about Earth—as positive, Feldman considered them potentially dangerous, essentially inviting predators to target Earth’s inhabitants. His alien would be a kind of bioweapon. The result was Species, which began as a spec script that eventually attracted the interest of MGM and director Roger Donaldson (The Bounty, No Way Out).

The premise is that the US government receives a response to the transmissions set into space: One message gives instructions on a new fuel source; the other contains explicit instructions on how to create an alien DNA sample and splice it with that of a human. Dr. Xavier Fitch (Ben Kingsley) is the scientist in charge of conducting the latter experiment, and the result is Sil (played as a young girl by Michelle Williams), a female alien/human hybrid they believed would have “docile and controllable” traits.

In just three months, Sil develops into a 12-year-old girl. But she starts exhibiting odd behavior as she sleeps, indicative of violent tendencies. Fitch decides to terminate the experiment, which means killing Sil by filling her containment cell with cyanide gas. A betrayed Sil breaks out of her cell and escapes. Fitch (who is the worst) puts together a crack team to track her down and eliminate her: mercenary Preston Lennox (Madsen); a molecular biologist named Dr. Laura Baker (a pre-CSI Marg Helgenberger); anthropologist Dr. Stephen Arden (Alfred Molina), and an “empath” named Dan Smithson (Forest Whitaker).

An experiment run amok

Preston Lennox (Michael Madsen), Dan Smithson (Forest Whitaker), Dr. Xavier Fitch (Ben Kingsley), and Dr. Laura Baker (Marg Helgenberger) must hunt down an escaped alien/human hybrid. MGM

Sil won’t be easy to find. Not only does she evade detection and hop on a train to Los Angeles, but she also transforms into a cocoon stage en route, emerging as a fully grown female (Natasha Henstridge) upon arrival. She’s smart and resourceful, too—and very deadly when she feels her survival is threatened, which is often. The team must locate Sil before she manages to mate and produce equally rapid-developing offspring. At least they can follow all the bodies: a tramp on the train, a train conductor, a young woman in a nightclub, a rejected suitor, etc. Of course, she finally manages to mate—with an unsuspecting Arden, no less—and gives birth in the labyrinthine LA sewers, before she and her hybrid son meet their grisly demises.

One can only admire H.R. Giger’s striking alien design; he wanted to create a monster who was “an aesthetic warrior, also sensual and deadly,” and he very much delivered on that vision. He had also wanted several stages of development for Sil, but in the end, the filmmakers kept things simple, limiting themselves to the cocoon stage that shepherded young Sil through puberty and Sil’s final alien maternal form with translucent skin—described as being “like a glass body but with carbon inside.”

That said, Giger didn’t much care for the final film. He thought it was much too similar to the Alien franchise, which boasts his most famous creature design, the xenomorph. For instance, there is the same punching tongue (Giger had wanted to incorporate barbed hooks for Sil), and Sil giving birth seems eerily akin to Alien‘s famous “chestburster” scene. Giger did manage to convince the director to have the team ultimately take out Sil with a fatal shot to the head rather than with flame-throwers, which he felt was too derivative of Alien 3 and Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Giger had a point: Species is not particularly ground-breaking or original in terms of plot or the nature of the alien posing a threat to humankind. The dialogue is uninspired (occasionally downright trite) and the characters aren’t well developed, most notably Kingsley’s weak-willed amoral scientist and Whitaker’s reluctant empath—both exceptionally gifted actors who are largely wasted here. Poor Whitaker is reduced to looking broody and stating the obvious about whatever Sil might be “feeling.” There are gestures toward themes that are never fully explored, and the outcome is predictable, right down to the final twist.

The mating game

Sil picks up a potential mate (Anthony Guidera) at ta local club. MGM

But there’s also plenty to like about Species. Madsen and Helgenberger give strong performances and have excellent on-screen chemistry; their sweetly awkward sex scene is the antithesis of Sil’s far more brutal approach—in fact, Sil learns more about the subtleties of seduction by eavesdropping on the pair. And the film is well-paced, with all the right beats and memorable moments for a successful sci-fi thriller.

Former model Henstridge acquits herself just fine in her debut role. Much was made in the press of Henstridge’s nude scenes, but while her beauty is used to great effect, it’s the character of Sil and her journey that compels our attention the most, along with our shifting emotions toward her. Young Sil is sympathetic, the result of an unethical science experiment. She didn’t ask to be born and has little control over what is happening to her. But she does want to live (hence her escape) and is genuinely scared when she begins to transform into her cocoon on the train.

Our sympathy is tested when adult Sil brutally kills a kindly train conductor, and then a romantic rival in a nightclub, both in a very gruesome manner. We might be able to rationalize the killing of the first rejected suitor, since he refuses to accept she’s changed her mind about mating with him and gets rough. But nice guy John (Whip Hubley)? The woman she takes as hostage to fake her own death? Both offer to help Sil and die for their trouble.

Granted, Sil’s distrust of humans is learned. She is being hunted by a team of professionals who intend to kill her, after all. When the woman hostage swears she won’t harm Sil if she lets her go, Sil responds, “Yes you would. You just don’t know it yet.” We gradually realize that Sil is not that little girl any longer—if she ever was—but a ruthless creature driven entirely by instinct, even if she doesn’t fully understand why she’s been sent to Earth in the first place. As Laura notes, adult Sil views humans as disposable “intergalactic weeds.” By the time we get to the showdown in the sewer, Sil isn’t even in human form anymore, so the audience has no qualms about her eventual violent demise.

Species performed well enough at the box office to spawn multiple sequels—each one worse than the last— an adapted novel, and a Dark Horse Comics series. None of them captured the unique combination of elements that lifted the original above its various shortcomings. It will never match Alien, but Species is nonetheless an entertaining ride.

Species at 30 makes for a great guilty pleasure Read More »

Review: Stellar cast makes Superman shine bright

culture, DCU, film reviews, James Gunn, Superman, Warner Bros. / Mike M. / July 12, 2025

I’ll be frank: I had mixed feelings, based solely on the trailers, about James Gunn’s Superman reboot. Sure, the casting seemed great, Gunn has a winning track record on superhero fare, and Krypto the dog stole the show every time he appeared. The trailers struck a nice balance between action, humor, and heart. Yet the film also seemed overpacked with super-character cameos, and it was hard to get any sense of the actual plot.

I’ve now seen the film, and those impressions were largely correct. But I’m happy to report that the positives far outweigh any negatives. Superman is a super-fun ride that unabashedly embraces its early comic book roots, naive optimism and all.

(Spoilers below, but no major reveals.)

Gunn has described his take as less of an origin story and more of a journey, with Superman (David Corenswet) struggling to reconcile his Kryptonian heritage and aristocratic origins with his small-town adoptive human family. In fact, Gunn wanted to avoid the origin story entirely, asserting (correctly, in my opinion) that it has already been depicted multiple times and there is no need to cover the same ground.

So the film opens in medias res, with Superman’s first defeat in battle against a metahuman dubbed the “Hammer of Boravia.” We see him fall into the snow, bloodied and battered, and whistle for Krypto. The plucky little superdog drags Superman to the Fortress of Solitude, where he is treated by a posse of robots. Then he heads out again for Round 2—only to once again be thrashed by his rival metahuman (codename: Ultraman) who, we learn, is being controlled by Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) for mysterious and no doubt nefarious purposes.

Why is Ultraman attacking Metropolis? Because a few weeks before, Superman had foiled the Boravian army’s invasion of the neighboring country of Jarhanpur, avoiding pointless bloodshed but drawing criticism for interfering in a foreign war when he lacked any governmental authority to do so. Naturally, Luthor expertly manipulates the media coverage against Superman while trying to convince the Pentagon that Superman poses a major threat to national security. The idealistic and naively optimistic Superman walks right into the trap.

Review: Stellar cast makes Superman shine bright Read More »

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

Ars reflects on Apollo 13 turning 30 Read More »