Entertainment

a-shark-scientist-reflects-on-jaws-at-50

A shark scientist reflects on Jaws at 50


We’re still afraid to go in the water

Ars chats with marine biologist David Shiffman about the film’s legacy—both good and bad.

Roy Scheider starred as Chief Martin Brody in the 1975 blockbuster Jaws. Credit: Universal Pictures

Today marks the 50th anniversary of Jaws, Steven Spielberg’s blockbuster horror movie based on the bestselling novel by Peter Benchley. We’re marking the occasion with a tribute to this classic film and its enduring impact on the popular perception of sharks, shark conservation efforts, and our culture at large.

(Many spoilers below.)

Jaws tells the story of Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider), the new police chief for Amity Island, a New England beach town and prime summer tourist attraction. But that thriving industry is threatened by a series of shark attacks, although the local mayor, Larry Vaughn (Murray Hamilton), initially dismisses the possibility, ridiculing the findings of visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss). The attacks keep escalating and the body count grows, until the town hires a grizzled shark hunter named Quint (Robert Shaw) to hunt down and kill the great white shark, with the help of Brody and Hooper.

Benchley wrote his novel after reading about a sports fisherman named Frank Mundus, who captured a very large shark in 1964; in fact, the character of Quint is loosely based on Mundus. Benchley wrote an early draft of the screenplay, which underwent multiple revisions during production. In the end, he estimated that his contributions amounted to the basic storyline and the mechanics. Spielberg wasn’t the studio’s first choice for director; initially they hired Dick Richards, but Richards kept referring to the shark as a whale. Eventually, he was fired and replaced with the 26-year-old Spielberg, who had just finished his first feature film (The Sugarland Express).

Spielberg was given a $3.5 million shooting budget and a timeframe of 55 days for filming. However, the production was troubled from the start, largely due to the director’s insistence on shooting on location in Martha’s Vineyard; Jaws was the first major film to be shot on the ocean. Spielberg later admitted, “I was pretty naive about Mother Nature and the hubris of a filmmaker who thinks he can conquer the elements was foolhardy.” Unwanted boats kept drifting into the frame; cameras kept getting waterlogged; Carl Gottlieb (who played the local news editor Meadows) was nearly decapitated by a propeller; Dreyfuss nearly got stuck in the shark cage; and several actors suffered from seasickness. Frustrated crew members took to calling the movie “Flaws.”

A shark strikes

“duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh….” Universal Pictures

There were three pneumatically powered full-sized mechanical sharks built for the shoot, nicknamed “Bruce,” and they kept malfunctioning. The pneumatic hoses kept taking on seawater; the skin was made of neoprene foam, which soaked up water and became bloated; and one of the models kept getting tangled up in seaweed. In the end, Spielberg opted to shoot most of the early scenes without ever showing the actual shark, which actually heightened the tension and suspense, especially when combined with John Williams’ ominous theme music (“duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh…”).

In the end, shooting ran for 159 days, and the budget ballooned to $9 million. All the delays gave Spielberg and his writers (especially Gottlieb) extra time to refine the script, often just prior to filming the scenes. A lot of the dialogue was improvised by the actors. And it was all worth it in the end, because Jaws went on to become a major summer box office success. All told, it grossed $476 million globally across all its theatrical releases and won three Oscars, although it lost Best Picture to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

Jaws inspired many, many subsequent films, including Ridley Scott’s Alien in 1979, described in pitch meetings as “Jaws in space. Audience reactions were often extreme, with many people becoming fearful of swimming in the ocean for fear of sharks. And while the sequels were, shall we say, underwhelming, the original Jaws has stood the test of time. Ars spoke with marine biologist and shark conservationist David Shiffman, author of Why Sharks Matter, to discuss the film’s depiction of sharks and its enduring place in popular culture.

Ars Technica: Let’s start by talking about the enormous impact of the film, both good and bad, on the general public’s awareness of sharks.

David Shiffman: A lot of folks in both the marine science world and the ocean conservation communities have reported that Jaws in a lot of ways changed our world. It’s not that people used to think that sharks were cute, cuddly, adorable animals, and then after Jaws, they thought that they were bloodthirsty killing machines. They just weren’t on people’s minds. Fishermen knew about them, surfers thought about them, but that was about it. Most people who went to the beach didn’t pay much mind to what could be there. Jaws absolutely shattered that. My parents both reported that the summer that Jaws came out, they were afraid to go swimming in their community swimming pools.

No, really, the water’s fine!

“You knew.” The young boy’s mother (Lee Fierro) confronts Brody. Universal Pictures

David Shiffman: I have encountered people who were so scared that they were afraid to go in the bathtub. A lot of movies are very scary, but they don’t have that real-world impact. I love Jurassic Park, but I’m not afraid that a T. rex is going to eat me when I go into an outhouse, even though that’s about as realistic as what’s portrayed in Jaws. There’s something called the “Jaws Effect” in public policy literature, which is a way of measuring how fictional portrayals of real-world issues affect what citizens think about that issue and what policy preferences they support as a result. It’s fascinating how a fictional portrayal can do that, because I cannot stress enough: That is not what sharks look like or how they behave.

The movie also was the first time that a scientist was the hero. People half a generation above me have reported that seeing Richard Dreyfuss’ Hooper on the big screen as the one who saves the day changed their career trajectory. “You can be a scientist who studies fish. Cool. I want to do that.” In the time since Jaws came out, a lot of major changes have happened. One is that shark populations have declined globally by about 50 percent, and many species are now critically endangered.

And shark science has become much more professionalized. The American Elasmobranch Society—I’m on the board of directors—was founded in 1983, and now we have about 500 members in the US, Canada ,and Mexico. There have since been subsequent organizations founded in Australia and the Pacific Islands, Europe, South America, and a new one starting this year in Asia.

And then, from a cultural standpoint, we now have a whole genre of bad shark movies.

Ars Technica: Sharknado!

David Shiffman: Yes! Sharknado is one of the better of the bunch. Sitting on my desk here, we’ve got Sharkenstein, Raiders of the Lost Shark, and, of course, Shark Exorcist, all from the 2010s. I’ve been quoted as saying there’s two types of shark movie: There’s Jaws and there’s bad shark movies.

Ars Technica: Populations of the tiger shark, the great white, and couple of other species have declined so dramatically that many are on the verge of extinction. Is it just a coincidence that those declines started shortly after Jaws came out? 

David Shiffman: The short answer is not that Jaws caused this, but that perhaps Jaws made it easier for it to happen because people weren’t outraged the way they might’ve been if it happened to say, whales, whose populations were also declining around the same time. The number one threat to shark species as a whole is unsustainable overfishing practices. People are killing too many sharks. Sustainable fisheries for sharks can and do exist, and the US largely has done a good job with this, but around the world, it’s a bad scene.

“A whole genre of bad shark movies”

For instance, shark fin soup started to be a problem around the 1980s thanks to the economic boom in China and the emergence of a new middle class there. Shark fin soup is a traditional Chinese and Southeast Asian delicacy. It’s associated with the emperor and his court. It’s not shark meat that’s used. It’s the little skeletal fin rays from the fins that are basically a bland, noodle-like substance when they’re dried and boiled. The purpose of this was for people to say, “I have so much money that I can eat these incredibly rare delicacies.” That was not caused by Jaws. But perhaps it was allowed to happen because there was less public sympathy for sharks.

It’s worth noting that shark fin soup and the shark fin trade is no longer the biggest or only threat to sharks. It hasn’t been in about 20 years. Ironically, a lot of that has to do with Chinese government efforts not to save the ocean, but to crack down on public corruption. A lot of government officials used to throw extravagant banquets for their friends and family. The new Chinese government said, “We’re not doing that anymore.” That alone saved a lot of endangered species. It was not motivated by concern about the state of the ocean, but it had that effect.

Ars Technica: People have a tendency to think that sharks are simply brutal killing machines. Why are they so important to the ecosystem?

David Shiffman: The title of my book is Why Sharks Matter because sharks do matter and people don’t think about them that way. These are food chains that provide billions of humans with food, including some of the poorest humans on Earth. They provide tens of millions of humans with jobs. When those food chains are disrupted, that’s bad for coastal communities, bad for food security and livelihoods. If we want to have healthy ocean food chains, we need a healthy top of the food chain, because when you lose the top of the food chain, the whole thing can unravel in unpredictable, but often quite devastating ways.

 So sharks play important ecological roles by holding the food chain that we all depend on in place. They’re also not a significant threat to you and your family. More people in a typical year die from flower pots falling on their head when they walk down the street. More people in a typical year die falling off a cliff when they’re trying to take a selfie of the scenery behind them, than are killed by sharks. Any human death or injury is a tragedy, and I don’t want to minimize that. But when we’re talking about global-scale policy responses, the relative risk versus reward needs to be considered.

Ars Technica:  There’s a scene in Jaws where Hooper is talking about his personal theory: territoriality, the idea that this rogue great white came in and made this his personal territory and now he’ll just keep feeding until the food runs out. Is that a real scientific premise from the 1970s and how valid is it?

The hunt begins

The town hires grizzled shark hunter Quint (Robert Shaw) to kill the great white shark. Universal Pictures

David Shiffman: Rogue sharks are nonsense. It is nonsense that is still held by some kooks who are ostensibly in my field, but it is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. In all of recorded human history, there is proof that exactly one shark bit more than one human. That was the Sharm el-Sheikh attacks around Christmas in Egypt a few years ago. Generally speaking, a lot of times it’s hard to predict why wild animals do or don’t do anything. But if this was a behavior that was real, there would be evidence that it happens and there isn’t any, despite a lot of people looking.

Was it commonly believed in the 1970s? No. Did Peter Benchley make it up? No. It’s a thing in some animals for sure. In some neighborhoods, people will pick up gators and move them hundreds of miles away; the gators will move back to that exact same spot. I think the same thing has been shown with bears. Wolves certainly have a home range. But for sharks, it’s not a thing.

Ars Technica: Quint has a famous monologue about surviving the USS Indianapolis sinking and witnessing crew members being eaten by sharks. How historically accurate is that?. 

David Shiffman: We don’t really know how many of the people who were killed following the sinking of the Indianapolis were killed by sharks. Certainly, firsthand accounts report that sharks were present. But those people were in the water because they were on a boat that exploded after being hit by a torpedo. That is not good for your health. So a lot of those people were either mortally wounded or killed by that initial explosion, and then perhaps were scavenged by sharks. Those are also people who are in the water bleeding, making a lot of noise. That’s an incredible scene in the movie. But the deaths Quint attributes to sharks is more people than have been reliably documented as killed by sharks in the history of the world ever.

Ars Technica: How accurate is Jaws in terms of how and why sharks attack humans? For instance, someone says that people splashing in the water mimics what sharks want to hunt. 

David Shiffman: Anyone who tells you they know exactly why a wild animal does or does not do something is someone who you should be a little skeptical of. But a leading theory, which I think makes sense, is this idea of mistaken identity. Some of the people who are most commonly bitten by sharks, though it’s still astronomically rare, are surfers. These are people who are cutting through the water with a silhouette that resembles a seal, wearing black neoprene, which is modeled after seal blubber. Sharks have been patrolling the ocean since before there were trees on land, and it’s only in the last hundred years or so that they’ve had to wonder, is that my preferred prey, or is it a human using technology to mimic my preferred prey for recreational purposes?

If you’ve been in the ocean, there’s been a shark not that far from you, and it knew you were there, and you probably had no idea it was there and had a pleasant day in the water. The sharks that do bite people, they take a little bite and they go, what is that? And swim away. That can be real bad if it hits a major artery or if you’re far from shore. Again, I don’t want to minimize the real harm. But it is not a shark hunting you because it has a taste for human flesh. They don’t have hands. They explore their environment with their mouths and most things in their environment they can eat.

I think Mythbusters tested fish blood versus mammal blood versus chicken blood, I think. And the sharks were attracted to fish blood and had no reaction to the others. So these are animals that are very, very, very well adapted for environmental conditions that in some cases don’t really exist anymore.

Man vs. great white

Brody fights off an increasingly aggressive great white. Universal Pictures

With humans, most of the time, what happens is an immediate bite, and then they swim away. With seals or large prey, they’ll often hit it really hard from below, sometimes knocking it completely out of the water. Or if they’re hunting whales or something that they can’t fit in their mouth, they just take a huge bite and swim away. With fish, they swallow them whole to the extent possible. Sometimes there’s a shaking motion to snap a neck or whatever. You see that with some land predators, too. It’s nothing like what’s seen there—but what an awesome scene.

Ars Technica: What is your favorite scene in Jaws and the one that makes you cringe the most?

David Shiffman: Oh, man. It’s really a great movie, and it holds up well. It was hailed as revolutionary at the time because you hardly ever see the shark. But the reason they did that was because the model of the shark that they built kept breaking. So they decided, let’s just shoot it from the shark’s eye view and save money and annoyance. I love the scene when Hooper realizes that the tiger shark that they’ve caught is obviously not the right species and the reaction that people have to that—just this idea that science and expertise can be used to solve problems. Whenever a shark bites someone, there are people who go out and kill any shark they can find and think that they’re helping.

One of my favorite professional experiences is the American Alasdair Rank Society conference. One year it was in Austin, Texas, near the original Alamo Drafthouse. Coincidentally, while we were there, the cinema held a “Jaws on the Water” event. They had a giant projector screen, and we were sitting in a lake in inner tubes while there were scuba divers in the water messing with us from below. I did that with 75 professional shark scientists. It was absolutely amazing. It helped knowing that it was a lake.

Ars Technica: If you wanted to make another really good shark movie, what would that look like today? 

David Shiffman: I often say that there are now three main movie plots: a man goes on a quest, a stranger comes to town, or there’s a shark somewhere you would not expect a shark to be. It depends if you want to make a movie that’s actually good, or one of the more fun “bad” movies like Sharknado or Sharktopus or Avalanche Sharks—the tagline of which is “snow is just frozen water.” These movies are just off the rails and absolutely incredible. The ones that don’t take themselves too seriously and are in on the joke tend to be very fun. But then you get movies like Netflix’s Under Paris (2024); they absolutely thought they were making a good movie and took themselves very seriously, and it was painful to watch.

I would love to see actual science and conservation portrayed. I’d love to see species that are not typically found in these movies featured. The Sharknado series actually did a great job of this because they talked with me and other scientists after the success of the first one. Sharknado II is thanked in my PhD dissertation, because they funded one of my chapters. In that movie, it’s not just great whites and tiger sharks and bull sharks. They have a whale shark that falls out of the sky and hits someone. They have a cookie-cutter shark that falls out of the sky and burrows through someone’s leg. There’s a lot of shark diversity out there, and it’d be nice to get that featured more.

Photo of Jennifer Ouellette

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.

A shark scientist reflects on Jaws at 50 Read More »

paramount-drops-trailer-for-the-naked-gun-reboot

Paramount drops trailer for The Naked Gun reboot

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 »

a-warlord-brings-chaos-in-foundation-s3-trailer

A warlord brings chaos in Foundation S3 trailer

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

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

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

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

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

Squid Game trailer anchors Netflix Tudum event


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.

Photo of Jennifer Ouellette

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.

Squid Game trailer anchors Netflix Tudum event Read More »

the-making-of-apple-tv’s-murderbot

The making of Apple TV’s Murderbot


Ars chats with series creators Paul and Chris Weitz about adapting Martha Wells’ book series for TV.

Built to destroy. Forced to connect. Credit: Apple TV+

In the mood for a jauntily charming sci-fi comedy dripping with wry wit and an intriguing mystery? Check out Apple TV’s Murderbot, based on Martha Wells’ bestselling series of novels The Murderbot Diaries. It stars Alexander Skarsgård as the titular Murderbot, a rogue cyborg security (SEC) unit that gains autonomy and must learn to interact with humans while hiding its new capabilities.

(Some minor spoilers below, but no major reveals.)

There are seven books in Wells’ series thus far. All are narrated by Murderbot, who is technically owned by a megacorporation but manages to hack and override its governor module. Rather than rising up and killing its former masters, Murderbot just goes about performing its security work, relieving the boredom by watching a lot of entertainment media; its favorite is a soap opera called The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon.

Murderbot the TV series adapts the first book in the series, All Systems Red. Murderbot is on assignment on a distant planet, protecting a team of scientists who hail from a “freehold.” Mensah (Noma Dumezweni) is the team leader. The team also includes Bharadwaj (Tamara Podemski) and Gurathin (David Dastmalchian), who is an augmented human plugged into the same data feeds as Murderbot (processing at a much slower rate). Pin-Lee (Sabrina Wu) also serves as the team’s legal counsel; they are in a relationship with Arada (Tattiawna Jones), eventually becoming a throuple with Ratthi (Akshay Khanna).

As in the books, Murderbot is the central narrator, regaling us with his observations of the humans with their silly ways and discomfiting outbursts of emotion. Mensah and her fellow scientists were forced to rent a SEC unit to get the insurance they needed for their mission, and they opted for the cheaper, older model, unaware that it had free will. This turns out to be a good investment when Murderbot rescues Bharadwaj from being eaten by a giant alien worm monster—losing a chunk of its own torso in the process.

However, it makes a tactical error when it shows its human-like face to Ratthi, who is paralyzed by shock and terror, making small talk to get everyone back to safety. This rouses Gurathin’s suspicions, but the rest of the team can’t help but view Murderbot differently—as a sentient being rather than a killing machine—much to Murderbot’s dismay. Can it keep its free will a secret and avoid being melted down in acid while helping the scientists figure out why there are mysterious gaps in their survey maps? And will the scientists succeed in their attempts to “humanize” their SEC unit?

image of Murderbot's head with data screens superimposed over it

Murderbot figured out how to hack its “governor module.”

The task of adapting Wells’ novella for TV fell to sibling co-creators Paul Weitz (Little Fockers, Bel Canto) and Chris Weitz (The Golden Compass, Rogue One), whose shared credits include Antz, American Pie, and About A Boy. (Wells herself was a consulting producer.) They’ve kept most of the storyline intact, fleshing out characters and punching up the humor a bit, even recreating campy scenes from The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon—John Cho and Clark Gregg make cameos as the stars of that fictional show-within-a-show.

Ars caught up with Paul and Chris Weitz to learn more about the making of Murderbot.

Ars Technica: What drew you to this project?

Chris Weitz: It’s a great central character, kind of a literary character that felt really rare and strong. The fact that we both liked the books equally was a big factor as well.

Paul Weitz: The first book, All Systems Red, had a really beautiful ending. And it had a theme that personhood is irreducible. The idea that, even with this central character you think you get to know so well, you can’t reduce it to ways that you think it’s going to behave—and you shouldn’t. The idea that other people exist and that they shouldn’t be put into whatever box you want to put them into felt like something that was comforting to have in one’s pocket. If you’re going to spend so much time adapting something, it’s really great if it’s not only fun but is about something.

It was very reassuring to be working with Martha Wells on it because she was very generous with her time. The novella’s quite spare, so even though we didn’t want to cut anything, we wanted to add some things. Why is Gurathin the way that he is? Why is he so suspicious of Murderbot? What is his personal story? And with Mensah, for instance, the idea that, yes, she’s this incredibly worthy character who’s taking on all this responsibility on her shoulders, but she also has panic attacks. That’s something that’s added, but we asked Martha, “Is it OK if we make Mensah have some panic attacks?” And she’s like, “Oh, that’s interesting. I kind of like that idea.” So that made it less alarming to adapt it.

group of ethnically diverse people in space habitat uniforms gathering around a computer monitor

Murderbot’s clients: a group of scientists exploring the resources of what turns out to be a very dangerous planet. Credit: Apple TV+

Ars Technica: You do play up the humorous aspects, but there is definitely humor in the books. 

Chris Weitz:  A lot of great science fiction is very, very serious without much to laugh at. In Martha’s world, not only is there a psychological realism in the sense that people can have PTSD when they are involved in violence, but also people have a sense of humor and funny things happen, which is inherently what happens when people get together. I was going to say it’s a human comedy, but actually, Murderbot is not human—but still a person.

Ars Technica: Murderbot’s favorite soap opera, The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon, is merely mentioned in passing in the book, but you’ve fleshed it out as a show-within-the-show. 

Chris Weitz: We just take our more over-the-top instincts and throw it to that. Because it’s not as though we think that Sanctuary Moon is bad.

Ars Technica: As Murderbot says, it’s quality entertainment!

Chris Weitz: It’s just a more unhinged form of storytelling. A lot of the stuff that the bot says in Sanctuary Moon is just goofy lines that we could have given to Murderbot in a situation like that. So we’re sort of delineating what the show isn’t. At the same time, it’s really fun to indulge your worst instincts, your most guilty pleasure kind of instincts. I think that was true for the actors who came to perform it as well.

Paul Weitz: Weirdly, you can state some things that you wouldn’t necessarily in a real show when DeWanda Wise’s character, who’s a navigation bot, says, “I’m a navigation unit, not a sex bot.” I’m sure there are many people who have felt like that. Also, to delineate it visually, the actors were in a gigantic stage with pre-made visuals around them, whereas most of the stuff [for Murderbot] was practical things that had been built.

Ars Technica: In your series, Murderbot is basically a Ken doll with no genitals. The book only mentioned that Murderbot has no interest in sex. But the question of what’s under the hood, so to speak, is an obvious one that one character in particular rather obsesses over.

Chris Weitz: It’s not really addressed in the book, but certainly, Murderbot, in this show as well, has absolutely no interest in romance or sex or love. This was a personable way to point it out. There was a question of, once you’ve got Alexander in this role, hasn’t anybody noticed what it looks like? And also, the sort of exploitation that bot constructs are subjected to in this world that Martha has created meant that someone was probably going to treat it like an object at some point.

Paul Weitz: I also think, both of us having kids, you get a little more exposed to ways of thinking that imply that the way that we were brought up thinking of romance and sexuality and gender is not all there is to it and that, possibly, in the future, it’s not going to be so strange, this idea that one can be either asexual or—

Chris Weitz: A-romantic. I think that Murderbot, among neurodivergent communities and a-romantic, asexual communities, it’s a character that people feel they can identify with—even people who have social anxiety like myself or people who think that human beings can be annoying, which is pretty much everyone at some point or another.

Ars Technica: It’s interesting you mentioned neurodivergence. I would hesitate to draw a direct comparison because it’s a huge spectrum, but there are elements of Murderbot that seem to echo autistic traits to some degree.

Paul Weitz: People look at something like the autism spectrum, and they inadvertently erase the individuality of people who might be on that spectrum because everybody has a very particular experience of life. Martha Wells has been quoted as saying that in writing Murderbot, she realized that there are certain aspects of herself that might be neurodivergent. So that kind of gives one license to discuss the character in a certain way.

That’s one giant and hungry worm monster. Apple TV+

Chris Weitz: I don’t think it’s a direct analogy in any way, but I can understand why people from various areas on the spectrum can identify with that.

Paul Weitz: I think one thing that one can identify with is somebody telling you that you should not be the way you are, you should be a different way, and that’s something that Murderbot doesn’t like nor do.

Ars Technica: You said earlier, it’s not human, but a person. That’s a very interesting delineation. What are your thoughts on the personhood of Murderbot?

Chris Weitz: This is the contention that you can be a person without being a human. I think we’re going to be grappling with this issue the moment that artificial general intelligence comes into being. I think that Martha, throughout the series, brings up different kinds of sentients and different kinds of personhood that aren’t standard human issue. It’s a really fascinating subject because it is our future in part, learning how to get along with intelligences that aren’t human.

Paul Weitz: There was a New York Times journalist a couple of years ago who interviewed a chatbot—

Chris Weitz:  It was Kevin Roose, and it was Sydney the Chatbot. [Editor: It was an AI chatbot added to Microsoft’s Bing search engine, dubbed Sydney by Roose.]

Paul Weitz: Right. During the course of the interview, the chatbot told the journalist to leave his wife and be with it, and that he was making a terrible mistake. The emotions were so all over the place and so specific and quirky and slightly scary, but also very, very recognizable. Shortly thereafter, Microsoft shut down the ability to talk with that chatbot. But I think that somewhere in our future, general intelligences are these sort of messy emotions and weird sort of unique personalities. And it does seem like something where we should entertain the thought that, yeah, we better treat everyone as a person.

murderbot with fave revealed, standing in a corner with his head bent and leaning against the wall, back to other other people

Murderbot isn’t human, but it is a person. Credit: Apple TV+

Ars Technica: There’s this Renaissance concept called sprezzatura—essentially making a difficult thing look easy. The series is so breezy and fun, the pacing is perfect, the finale is so moving. But I know it wasn’t easy to pull that off. What were your biggest challenges in making it work?

Chris Weitz: First, can I say that that is one of my favorite words in the world, and I think about it all the time. I remember trying to express this to people I’ve been working on movies with, a sense of sprezzatura. It’s like it is the duck’s legs moving underneath the water. It was a good decision to make this a half-hour series so you didn’t have a lot of meetings about what had just happened in the show inside of the show or figuring out why things were the way they were. We didn’t have to pad things and stretch them out.

It allowed us to feel like things were sort of tossed off. You can’t toss off anything, really, in science fiction because there’s going to be special effects, visual effects. You need really good teams that can roll with moving the camera in a natural way, reacting to the way that the characters are behaving in the environment. And they can fix things.

Paul Weitz: They have your back.

Chris Weitz: Yeah. Really great, hard work on behalf of a bunch of departments to make things feel like they’re just sort of happening and we’ve got a camera on it, as opposed to being very carefully laid out.

Paul Weitz: And a lot of it is trusting people and trusting their creativity, trying to create an environment where you’ve articulated what you’re after, but you don’t think their job better than they do. You’re giving notes, but people are having a sense of playfulness and fun as they’re doing the visual effects, as they’re coming up with the graphics, as they’re acting, as they’re doing pretty much anything. And creating a good vibe on the set. Because sometimes, the stress of making something sucks some of the joy out of it. The antidote to that is really to trust your collaborators.

Ars Technica: So what was your favorite moment in the series?

Paul Weitz: I’d say the tenth episode, for me, just because it’s been a slow burn. There’s been enough work put into the characters—for instance, David Dastmalchian’s character—and we haven’t played certain cards that we could have played, so there can be emotional import without telegraphing it too much. Our ending stays true to the book, and that’s really beautiful.

Chris Weitz: I can tell you my worst moment, which is the single worst weather day I’ve ever experienced in a quarry in Ontario where we had hail, rain, snow, and wind—so much so that our big, long camera crane just couldn’t function. Some of the best moments were stuff that had nothing to do with visual effects or CGI—just moments of comedy in between the team members, that only exist within the context of the cast that we brought together.

Paul Weitz: And the fact that they loved each other so much. They’re very different people from each other, but they really did genuinely bond.

Ars Technica: I’m going to boldly hope that there’s going to be a second season because there are more novels to adapt. Are you already thinking about season two?

Paul Weitz: We’re trying not to think about that too much; we’d love it if there was.

Chris Weitz: We’re very jinxy about that kind of stuff. So we’ve thought in sort of general ways. There’s some great locations and characters that start to get introduced [in later books], like Art, who’s an AI ship. We’re likely not to make it one season per book anymore, we’d do a mashup of the material that we have available to us. We’re going to have to sit with Martha and figure out how that works if we are lucky enough to get renewed.

New episodes of Murderbot release every Friday on Apple TV+ through July 11, 2025. You should definitely be watching.

Photo of Jennifer Ouellette

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.

The making of Apple TV’s Murderbot Read More »

ana-de-armas-is-caught-in-wick’s-crosshairs-in-final-ballerina-trailer

Ana de Armas is caught in Wick’s crosshairs in final Ballerina trailer

One last trailer for From the World of John Wick: Ballerina.

We’re about three weeks out from the theatrical release of From the World of John Wick: Ballerina, starring Ana de Armas. So naturally Lionsgate has released one final trailer to whet audience appetites for what promises to be a fiery, action-packed addition to the hugely successful franchise.

(Some spoilers for 2019’s John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum.)

Chronologically, Ballerina takes place during the events of John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum. As previously reported, Parabellum found Wick declared excommunicado from the High Table for killing crime lord Santino D’Antonio on the grounds of the Continental. On the run with a bounty on his head, he makes his way to the headquarters of the Ruska Roma crime syndicate, led by the Director (Anjelica Huston). The Director also trains young girls to be ballerina-assassins, and one young ballerina (played by Unity Phelan) is shown rehearsing in the scene. That dancer, Eve Macarro, is the main character in Ballerina, now played by de Armas.

Huston returns as the Director, Ian McShane is back as Winston, and Lance Reddick makes one final (posthumous) appearance as the Continental concierge, Charon. New cast members include Gabriel Byrne as the main villain, the Chancellor, who turns an entire town against Eve; Sharon Duncan-Brewster as Nogi, Eve’s mentor; Norman Reedus as Daniel Pine; and Catalina Sandino Moreno and David Castaneda in as-yet-undisclosed roles.

The first trailer was released last September and focused heavily on Eve’s backstory: Having been orphaned, she chose to train with the Ruska Roma in hopes of avenging her father’s brutal death. Wick only made a brief appearance, but he had more screen time in the second trailer, released in March, in which the pair face off in an atmospheric wintry landscape.

This final trailer opens with Eve looking up while directly in Wick’s crosshairs. Much of the ensuing footage isn’t new, but it does show de Armas to her best deadly advantage as she takes on combatant after combatant in true John Wick style. Her vow: “This isn’t done until they’re dead.”

From the World of John Wick: Ballerina hits theaters on June 6, 2025.

Ana de Armas is caught in Wick’s crosshairs in final Ballerina trailer Read More »

the-third-crisis-dawns-in-foundation-s3-teaser

The Third Crisis dawns in Foundation S3 teaser

We have our first teaser for the upcoming third season of Foundation.

It’s been nearly two years, but the third season of Foundation, Apple TV+’s epic adaptation (or remix) of the Isaac Asimov series, is almost here. The streaming platform released an action-packed teaser of what we can expect from the new ten-episode season: the onset of the Third Crisis, a galactic war, and a shirtless Lee Pace.

(Some spoilers for first two seasons below.)

Showrunner David S. Goyer took great pains in S1 to carefully set up his expansive fictional world, and the scope only broadened in the second season. As previously reported, Asimov’s fundamental narrative arc remains intact, with the series taking place across multiple planets over 1,000 years and featuring a huge cast of characters.

Mathematician Hari Seldon (Jared Harris) developed a controversial theory of “psychohistory,” and his calculations predict the fall of the Empire, ushering in a Dark Age period that will last 30,000 years, after which a second Empire will emerge. The collapse of the Empire is inevitable, but Seldon has a plan to reduce the Dark Ages to a mere 1,000 years through the establishment of a Foundation to preserve all human knowledge so that civilization need not rebuild itself entirely from scratch. He is aided in this endeavor by his math prodigy protegé Gaal Dornick (Lou Llobell).

The biggest change from the books is the replacement of the Empire’s ruling committee with a trio of Eternal Emperor clones called the Cleons—a genetic triune dynasty comprised of Brother Day (Pace), Brother Dusk (Terrence Mann), and Brother Dawn (Cassian Bilton). Technically, they are all perfect incarnations of the same man at different ages, and this is both the source of their strength as a team and of their conflicts. Their guardian is an android, Eto Demerzel (Laura Birn), one of the last surviving androids from the ancient Robot Wars, who is programmed to protect the dynasty at all costs.

The Third Crisis dawns in Foundation S3 teaser Read More »

review:-thunderbolts*-is-a-refreshing-return-to-peak-marvel-form

Review: Thunderbolts* is a refreshing return to peak Marvel form

It looks like Marvel has another critical and box office hit on its hands—and deservedly so—with Thunderbolts*, a follow-up of sorts to 2021’s Black Widow and the final film in the MCU’s Phase Five.

Yes, the asterisk is part of the title. Yes, I found that choice inexplicable when it was first announced. And yes, having seen the film, the asterisk makes perfect sense now as a well-timed joke. I won’t spill the beans because that would spoil the fun. Instead, I’ll simply say that Thunderbolts* is a refreshing return to peak Marvel form: well-paced, witty, and action-packed with enough heart to ensure you care about the characters.

(Some spoilers below.)

It’s basically the MCU’s version of The Suicide Squad (2021) with less over-the-top R-rated violence. In fact, that film’s director, James Gunn, was originally attached to direct Thunderbolts* but bowed out because he felt the projects were just too similar. Yet the PG-13 film definitely boasts that irreverent Gunn sensibility, with a vibe on par with the director’s delightful Guardians of the Galaxy (2014). Thunderbolts* might not reach the spectacular box office heights of last year’s R-rated Deadpool and Wolverine, but so far I’m optimistic about the MCU’s future.

Black Widow introduced us to Natasha Romanoff’s (Scarlett Johansson) backstory as a child recruited for training as an elite assassin, along with her adoptive sister (and equally lethal assassin) Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh). Thunderbolts* finds Yelena working as a hired mercenary for CIA director Valentina Allegra de Fontaine (Julia Louis-Dreyfus), but she’s still grieving the loss of Natasha, and her heart just isn’t in.

Yelena’s existential ennui leads her to seek out her adoptive father, Alexei/Red Guardian (David Harbour), the Russian super soldier counterpart to Captain America. He’s not doing much better, working as a limo driver and living off takeout, and tells Yelena that Natasha found the secret to fulfillment: be a superhero.

Review: Thunderbolts* is a refreshing return to peak Marvel form Read More »

monty-python-and-the-holy-grail-turns-50

Monty Python and the Holy Grail turns 50


Ars staffers reflect upon the things they love most about this masterpiece of absurdist comedy.

king arthur's and his knights staring up at something.

Credit: EMI Films/Python (Monty) Pictures

Credit: EMI Films/Python (Monty) Pictures

Monty Python and the Holy Grail is widely considered to be among the best comedy films of all time, and it’s certainly one of the most quotable. This absurdist masterpiece sending up Arthurian legend turns 50 (!) this year.

It was partly Python member Terry Jones’ passion for the Middle Ages and Arthurian legend that inspired Holy Grail and its approach to comedy. (Jones even went on to direct a 2004 documentary, Medieval Lives.) The troupe members wrote several drafts beginning in 1973, and Jones and Terry Gilliam were co-directors—the first full-length feature for each, so filming was one long learning process. Reviews were mixed when Holy Grail was first released—much like they were for Young Frankenstein (1974), another comedic masterpiece—but audiences begged to differ. It was the top-grossing British film screened in the US in 1975. And its reputation has only grown over the ensuing decades.

The film’s broad cultural influence extends beyond the entertainment industry. Holy Grail has been the subject of multiple scholarly papers examining such topics as its effectiveness at teaching Arthurian literature or geometric thought and logic, the comedic techniques employed, and why the depiction of a killer rabbit is so fitting (killer rabbits frequently appear drawn in the margins of Gothic manuscripts). My personal favorite was a 2018 tongue-in-cheek paper on whether the Black Knight could have survived long enough to make good on his threat to bite King Arthur’s legs off (tl;dr: no).

So it’s not at all surprising that Monty Python and the Holy Grail proved to be equally influential and beloved by Ars staffers, several of whom offer their reminiscences below.

They were nerd-gassing before it was cool

The Monty Python troupe famously made Holy Grail on a shoestring budget—so much so that they couldn’t afford to have the knights ride actual horses. (There are only a couple of scenes featuring a horse, and apparently it’s the same horse.) Rather than throwing up their hands in resignation, that very real constraint fueled the Pythons’ creativity. The actors decided the knights would simply pretend to ride horses while their porters followed behind, banging halves of coconut shells together to mimic the sound of horses’ hooves—a time-honored Foley effect dating back to the early days of radio.

Being masters of absurdist humor, naturally, they had to call attention to it. Arthur and his trusty servant, Patsy (Gilliam), approach the castle of their first potential recruit. When Arthur informs the guards that they have “ridden the length and breadth of the land,” one of the guards isn’t having it. “What, ridden on a horse? You’re using coconuts! You’ve got two empty halves of coconut, and you’re bangin’ ’em together!”

That raises the obvious question: Where did they get the coconuts? What follows is one of the greatest examples of nerd-gassing yet to appear on film. Arthur claims he and Patsy found them, but the guard is incredulous since the coconut is tropical and England is a temperate zone. Arthur counters by invoking the example of migrating swallows. Coconuts do not migrate, but Arthur suggests they could be carried by swallows gripping a coconut by the husk.

The guard still isn’t having it. It’s a question of getting the weight ratios right, you see, to maintain air-speed velocity. Another guard gets involved, suggesting it might be possible with an African swallow, but that species is non-migratory. And so on. The two are still debating the issue as an exasperated Arthur rides off to find another recruit.

The best part? There’s a callback to that scene late in the film when the knights must answer three questions to cross the Bridge of Death or else be chucked into the Gorge of Eternal Peril. When it’s Arthur’s turn, the third question is “What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?” Arthur asks whether this is an African or a European swallow. This stumps the Bridgekeeper, who gets flung into the gorge. Sir Belvedere asks how Arthur came to know so much about swallows. Arthur replies, “Well, you have to know these things when you’re a king, you know.”

The plucky Black Knight (“It’s just a flesh wound!”) will always hold a special place in my heart, but that debate over air-speed velocities of laden versus unladen swallows encapsulates what makes Holy Grail a timeless masterpiece.

Jennifer Ouellette

A bunny out for blood

“Oh, it’s just a harmless little bunny, isn’t it?”

Despite their appearances, rabbits aren’t always the most innocent-looking animals. Recent reports of rabbit strikes on airplanes are the latest examples of the mayhem these creatures of chaos can inflict on unsuspecting targets.

I learned that lesson a long time ago, though, thanks partly to my way-too-early viewings of the animated Watership Down and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. There I was, about 8 years old and absent of paternal accompaniment, watching previously cuddly creatures bloodying each other and severing the heads of King Arthur’s retinue. While Watership Down’s animal-on-animal violence might have been a bit scarring at that age, I enjoyed the slapstick humor of the Rabbit of Caerbannog scene (many of the jokes my colleagues highlight went over my head upon my initial viewing).

Despite being warned of the creature’s viciousness by Tim the Enchanter, the Knights of the Round Table dismiss the Merlin stand-in’s fear and charge the bloodthirsty creature. But the knights quickly realize they’re no match for the “bad-tempered rodent,” which zips around in the air, goes straight for the throat, and causes the surviving knights to run away in fear. If Arthur and his knights possessed any self-awareness, they might have learned a lesson about making assumptions about appearances.

But hopefully that’s a takeaway for viewers of 1970s British pop culture involving rabbits. Even cute bunnies, as sweet as they may seem initially, can be engines of destruction: “Death awaits you all with nasty, big, pointy teeth.”

Jacob May

Can’t stop the music

The most memorable songs from Monty Python and the Holy Grail were penned by Neil Innes, who frequently collaborated with the troupe and appears in the film. His “Brave Sir Robin” amusingly parodied minstrel tales of valor by imagining all the torturous ways that one knight might die. Then there’s his “Knights of the Round Table,” the first musical number performed by the cast—if you don’t count the monk chants punctuated with slaps on the head with wooden planks. That song hilariously rouses not just wild dancing from knights but also claps from prisoners who otherwise dangle from cuffed wrists.

But while these songs have stuck in my head for decades, Monty Python’s Terry Jones once gave me a reason to focus on the canned music instead, and it weirdly changed the way I’ve watched the movie ever since.

Back in 2001, Jones told Billboard that an early screening for investors almost tanked the film. He claimed that after the first five minutes, the movie got no laughs whatsoever. For Jones, whose directorial debut could have died in that moment, the silence was unthinkable. “It can’t be that unfunny,” he told Billboard. “There must be something wrong.”

Jones soon decided that the soundtrack was the problem, immediately cutting the “wonderfully rich, atmospheric” songs penned by Innes that seemed to be “overpowering the funny bits” in favor of canned music.

Reading this prompted an immediate rewatch because I needed to know what the first bit was that failed to get a laugh from that fateful audience. It turned out to be the scene where King Arthur encounters peasants in a field who deny knowing that there even was a king. As usual, I was incapable of holding back a burst of laughter when one peasant woman grieves, “Well, I didn’t vote for you” while packing random clumps of mud into the field. It made me wonder if any song might have robbed me of that laugh, and that made me pay closer attention to how Jones flipped the script and somehow meticulously used the canned music to extract more laughs.

The canned music was licensed from a British sound library that helped the 1920s movie business evolve past silent films. They’re some of the earliest songs to summon emotion from viewers whose eyes were glued to a screen. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which features a naive King Arthur enduring his perilous journey on a wood stick horse, the canned music provides the most predictable soundtrack you could imagine that might score a child’s game of make-believe. It also plays the straight man by earnestly pulsing to convey deep trouble as knights approach the bridge of death or heavenly trumpeting the anticipated appearance of the Holy Grail.

It’s easy to watch the movie without noticing the canned music, as the colorful performances are Jones’ intended focus. Not relying on punchlines, the group couldn’t afford any nuance to be lost. But there is at least one moment where Jones obviously relies on the music to overwhelm the acting to compel a belly laugh. Just before “the most foul, cruel, bad-tempered rodent” appears, a quick surge of dramatic music that cuts out just as suddenly makes it all the more absurd when the threat emerges and appears to be an “ordinary rabbit.”

It’s during this scene, too, that King Arthur delivers a line that sums up how predictably odd but deceptively artful the movie’s use of canned music really is. When he meets Tim the Enchanter—who tries to warn the knights about the rabbit’s “pointy teeth” by evoking loud thunder rolls and waggling his fingers in front of his mouth—Arthur turns to the knights and says, “What an eccentric performance.”

Ashley Belanger

Thank the “keg rock conclave”

I tried to make music a big part of my teenage identity because I didn’t have much else. I was a suburban kid with a B-minus/C-plus average, no real hobbies, sports, or extra-curriculars, plus a deeply held belief that Nine Inch Nails, the Beastie Boys, and Aphex Twin would never get their due as geniuses. Classic Rock, the stuff jocks listened to at parties and practice? That my dad sang along to after having a few? No thanks.

There were cultural heroes, there were musty, overwrought villains, and I knew the score. Or so I thought.

I don’t remember exactly where I found the little fact that scarred my oppositional ego forever. It might have been Spin magazine, a weekend MTV/VH1 feature, or that Rolling Stone book about the ’70s (I bought it for the punks, I swear). But at some point, I learned that a who’s-who of my era’s played-out bands—Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, even Jethro (freaking) Tull—personally funded one of my favorite subversive movies. Jimmy Page and Robert Plant, key members of the keg-rock conclave, attended the premiere.

It was such a small thing, but it raised such big, naive, adolescent questions. Somebody had to pay for Holy Grail—it didn’t just arrive as something passed between nerds? People who make things I might not enjoy could financially support things I do enjoy? There was a time when today’s overcelebrated dinosaurs were cool and hip in the subculture? I had common ground with David Gilmour?

Ever since, when a reference to Holy Grail is made, especially to how cheap it looks, I think about how I once learned that my beloved nerds (or theater kids) wouldn’t even have those coconut horses were it not for some decent-hearted jocks.

Kevin Purdy

A masterpiece of absurdism

“I blow my nose at you, English pig-dog!” EMI Films/Python (Monty) Pictures

I was young enough that I’d never previously stayed awake until midnight on New Year’s Eve. My parents were off to a party, my younger brother was in bed, and my older sister had a neglectful attitude toward babysitting me. So I was parked in front of the TV when the local PBS station aired a double feature of The Yellow Submarine and The Holy Grail.

At the time, I probably would have said my mind was blown. In retrospect, I’d prefer to think that my mind was expanded.

For years, those films mostly existed as a source of one-line evocations of sketch comedy nirvana that I’d swap with my friends. (I’m not sure I’ve ever lacked a group of peers where a properly paced “With… a herring!” had meaning.) But over time, I’ve come to appreciate other ways that the films have stuck with me. I can’t say whether they set me on an aesthetic trajectory that has continued for decades or if they were just the first things to tickle some underlying tendencies that were lurking in my not-yet-fully-wired brain.

In either case, my brain has developed into a huge fan of absurdism, whether in sketch comedy, longer narratives like Arrested Development or the lyrics of Courtney Barnett. Or, let’s face it, any stream of consciousness lyrics I’ve been able to hunt down. But Monty Python remains a master of the form, and The Holy Grail’s conclusion in a knight bust remains one of its purest expressions.

A bit less obviously, both films are probably my first exposures to anti-plotting, where linearity and a sense of time were really besides the point. With some rare exceptions—the eating of Sir Robin’s minstrels, Ringo putting a hole in his pocket—the order of the scenes were completely irrelevant. Few of the incidents had much consequence for future scenes. Since I was unused to staying up past midnight at that age, I’d imagine the order of events was fuzzy already by the next day. By the time I was swapping one-line excerpts with friends, it was long gone. And it just didn’t matter.

In retrospect, I think that helped ready my brain for things like Catch-22 and its convoluted, looping, non-Euclidean plotting. The novel felt like a revelation when I first read it, but I’ve since realized it fits a bit more comfortably within a spectrum of works that play tricks with time and find clever connections among seemingly random events.

I’m not sure what possessed someone to place these two films together as appropriate New Year’s Eve programming. But I’d like to think it was more intentional than I had any reason to suspect at the time. And I feel like I owe them a debt.

—John Timmer

A delightful send-up of autocracy

King Arthur attempting to throttle a peasant in the field

“See the violence inherent in the system!” Credit: Python (Monty) Pictures

What an impossible task to pick just a single thing I love about this film! But if I had to choose one scene, it would be when a lost King Arthur comes across an old woman—but oops, it’s actually a man named Dennis—and ends up in a discussion about medieval politics. Arthur explains that he is king because the Lady of the Lake conferred the sword Excalibur on him, signifying that he should rule as king of the Britons by divine right.

To this, Dennis replies, “Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”

Even though it was filmed half a century ago, the scene offers a delightful send-up of autocracy. And not to be too much of a downer here, but all of us living in the United States probably need to be reminded that living in an autocracy would suck for a lot of reasons. So let’s not do that.

Eric Berger

Photo of Jennifer Ouellette

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.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail turns 50 Read More »

sony-releases-new-trailer-for-28-years-later

Sony releases new trailer for 28 Years Later

Danny Boyle directs the third film in the post-apocalyptic franchise, 28 Years Later.

The critically acclaimed 2002 film 28 Days Later is often credited with sparking the 21st-century revival of the zombie genre. Director Danny Boyle is back with more zombie-virus dystopian horror in his new film set in the same fictional world, 28 Years Later—not so much a direct sequel but the start of a new planned trilogy.

(Some spoilers for 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later below.)

In 28 Days Later, a highly contagious “Rage Virus” is accidentally released from a lab in Cambridge, England. Those infected turn into violent, mindless monsters who brutally attack the uninfected—so-called “fast zombies.” Transmitted by bites, scratches, or even just by getting a drop of infected blood in one’s mouth, the virus spreads rapidly, effectively collapsing society. A bicycle courier named Jim (Cillian Murphy) awakens from a coma 28 days later to find London mostly deserted, apart from a handful of survivors fleeing the infected hordes, and joins them in the pursuit of safety. Jim (barely) survives, and we see zombies dying of starvation in the streets during the denouement.

The sequel, 28 Weeks Later, featured a new cast of characters living on the outskirts of London. With the help of NATO soldiers, Britain has begun rebuilding, taking in refugees and moving them to safe-zone districts. But all it takes is one careless person getting infected and raging out for the virus to spread uncontrollably yet again. So naturally, that’s what happens. The survivors eventually flee to France, only for the rage virus to spread there, too.

As early as 2007, Boyle had plans for a third film, set 28 months after the original outbreak, but it ended up in development hell. When the film finally got the green light in January 2024, the title had changed to 28 Years Later, given how much time had passed. Alex Garland returns as screenwriter and also wrote the two sequels for this new trilogy.

How much time do we have left?

Per the official synopsis:

It’s been almost three decades since the rage virus escaped a biological weapons laboratory, and now, still in a ruthlessly enforced quarantine, some have found ways to exist amidst the infected. One such group of survivors lives on a small island connected to the mainland by a single, heavily defended causeway. When one of the group leaves the island on a mission into the dark heart of the mainland, he discovers secrets, wonders, and horrors that have mutated not only the infected but other survivors as well.

Jodie Comer plays Isla, who lives with her husband, Jamie, (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and 12-year-old son, Spike (Alfie Williams), on the aforementioned island. Isla is pregnant, and Jamie scrounges out a living as a scavenger. The cast also includes Ralph Fiennes as Dr. Kelson, one of the survivors of the original outbreak; Jack O’Connell as cult leader Sir Jimmy Crystal; Edvin Ryding as Swedish NATO soldier Erik Sundqvist; Erin Kellyman as Jimmy Ink; and Emma Laird in an as-yet-undisclosed role.

Sony releases new trailer for 28 Years Later Read More »