Among upcoming horror movies on the 2026 movie schedule is a mysterious one called The End Of Oak Street. For much of the year, I’ve been curious about what to expect from the J.J. Abrams-produced thriller, and now I have a much better idea. It’s a dinosaur movie with a twist – they're somehow invading a typical American suburb.

CinemaBlend had the opportunity to experience fourteen minutes of The End Of Oak Street in 4DX and hear from producer J.J. Abrams. It’s about a nuclear family with a dog led by Ewan McGregor and Anne Hathaway (in her fourth of five movies this year alone). They live in a quiet suburb, but one morning there’s a number of dinosaur sightings that rattle them enough to attempt to leave home. The problem is at the end of their street now has a cliff that leads to a prehistoric land. Here’s what Abrams said of how he got involved:

There’s absolutely a mystery afoot in The End Of Oak Street. But, when Abrams mentioned an “Amblin vibe” I was expecting a lot more comparisons to Jurassic Park than to Poltergeist. Between his comments and the footage we watched, I totally see what he’s saying. Check out this new clip:

This new summer flick and the actually cursed 1982 Spielberg movie feel like they come from the same DNA. Why? Because, it’s really more about the family and their dynamics than the creatures they are trying to survive. As Abrams put it:

The End Of Oak Street was written and directed by David Robert Mitchell, who was previously behind It Follows and Under The Silver Lake. In the same conversation, the filmmaker talked about wanting to connect “the average and mundane” with something fantastical. And, he had always wanted to make a dinosaur movie. In a quick interview with him at the event, I had to ask how much of his horror sensibilities to expect in the family-centered film. He said this:

How exciting! The End Of Oak Street may very much be a dinosaur movie, but it’s drawing from much different influences than I expected. And, that only has me more interested in it. The End Of Oak Street comes to theaters on August 14.

Few upcoming horror movies have my attention perked quite like DC Studios’ first official horror movie, the James Watkins-directed Clayface. Even if we didn’t learn anything else about it prior to its October release, I would still be first in line to watch the upcoming DCU release with glee to spare. But that’s thankfully not the case, as the cast and creative team have shared new details about where Matt Hagen’s story fits in the overall timeline, and what to expect from this new Gotham City. (Check out the full-length Clayface trailer here!)

With several months to go before we get to see Tom Rhys Harries take shape in the 2026 movie release, EW spoke with the actor, DCU co-head Peter Safran, James Watkins and more about what to expect (lots of body horror) and what not to expect (Batman). James Gunn’s partner in crime(fighting storytelling) finally confirmed the biggest question that we’ve had since Clayface’s first teaser trailer dropped.

Where Does The Clayface Movie Fit In The DCU Timeline?

Peter Safran confirmed that there won't be any complicated scenarios involved here, and that everything we're seeing play out in Clayface takes place prior to the events of Creature Commandos Season 1. So does that mean the live-action character we'll see is the same entity crushing out in the HBO Max animated series? According to Safran:

It's a strange and potentially tricky line for DCU characters to exist in such a way across both live-action and animation, but I suppose so long as no one expects to see Frankenstein or G.I. Robot in the movie, there's not that much room to get it wrong.

I can't wait to see if the Clayface movie features any easter eggs that are relevant solely for fans who watched Creature Commandos. James Watkins confirmed that there will be plenty of nods to DC characters and lore, even if it's all meant to be background fun.

Watkins also points out that even though this Matt Hagen is the same one that Alan Tudy voices in the streaming series, and who totally survived the Season 1 finale, the creative team "pinched elements from all over the place" by way of inspiration. Plus, screenwriter Mike Flanagan has talked about the villain's introduction on Batman: The Animated Series as being a huge influence.

James Watkins Talks Bringing A New Gotham City To Audiences

One of the strangest things about Clayface being the third live-action DCU movie is that it will be responsible for introducing viewers to the latest version of Gotham City, one of the most iconic fictional locations of all time. And we'll get to walk down its streets and explore its seediness long before we're introduced to the DCU's Bruce Wayne and Batman. As such, the pressure is on.

James Watkins said he and James Gunn had ideas for where they wanted to bring focus to the well-established setting, saying:

Just going from the teaser alone, I can think of several shots lit by tungsten bulbs, which can instantly make a shot feel like it's in the middle of downtown. And when it comes to perhaps more recognizable parts of the city that high-profile characters may inhabit, Watkins made sure to pepper them in a way that won't ruin the narrative immersion. As he put it:

I cannot wait to visit, and I hope nobody will be offended if I don't choose to move to Gotham City permanently. Too rich for my blood.

Clayface is set to hit theaters on October 23, and I am really hoping that it exceeds all expectations in light of Supergirl's box office woes. Not because I'm worried about the DCU, which Safran confirmed isn't in trouble, but because I want DC Studios, Marvel and others to recognize that embracing horror is a great way to tell new stories while also saving a few dollars.

The proposed merger between Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Skydance has become a much-discussed topic in Hollywood. While the agreement has passed through a few legal hurdles before final authorization, it has faced pushback from multiple parties. Most recently, a coalition of 12 states put in a bid for a restraining order to halt the merger from going through. Now, following that, a federal judge has temporarily blocked the corporate consolidation for a limited period of time, and she laid out her reasoning.

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ruled on the decision on Monday, and this newly installed restraining order will be in effect for two weeks (or 14 days). Variety also reports that the order could be extended as long as 28 days. When it came to her decision, Judge Martinez-Olguin made note of the California-led coalition “showing at least demonstrates that serious questions going to the merits remain, weighing in favor of preliminary injunctive relief.” She also added:

The judge also made mention of Paramount’s assertion that its business would not be harmed by any kind of delay until September. As for the coalition of states arguing against the merger, it’s their collective contention that it would break federal antitrust law. They also assert that the $110 billion business movie would lead to the production of fewer movies and TV shows within Hollywood. What this group seeks is a preliminary injunction that would block the merger until there’s been a formal ruling on the states’ lawsuit.

Judge Martinez-Olguin also set a preliminary injunction hearing on August 3, but an agreement from both parties could delay that. Paramount has reportedly been wanting a hearing that includes live witnesses. As mentioned, the company wouldn’t run into any difficulties until this September and, at that point, it would owe Warner Bros. investors millions of dollars per day.

Warner Bros. Discovery was initially set to be acquired by Netflix, which put in an $83 billion bid for the company, though Paramount later pushed back with its own offer. The CEO for the streamer, Ted Sarandos, later explained that the high price tag prompted him and his colleagues not to present a counteroffer. Sarandos also talked about the potential impact of the deal, which is believed to lead to layoffs across both companies and alter the entertainment industry’s economic landscape.

Various celebrities have also spoken out against the merger, as Mark Ruffalo, Kristen Stewart and more signed an open letter opposing it. At that time, Paramount responded to the concerns and argued that the deal would “create a company that can greenlight more projects, back bold ideas, support talent across multiple stages of their careers, and bring stories to audiences at a truly global scale” while “strengthening competition.”

Whether this latest legal ruling will have any lasting effect on Paramount’s attempt to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery is too early to say. Regardless, what remains clear is that studio execs remain set in their attempt to absorb WB, while several states are also standing firm on their desire to block the merger.

Many longtime fans of the Evil Dead franchise have been excited for Evil Dead Burn — the sixth installment in the series. Reactions to the brutal first trailer were wild, with people freaking out about the “horrible, horrible things” being portrayed. Evil Dead Burn reviews are out ahead of its release on the 2026 movie calendar, and while critics agree this is the most violent of the franchise, one big question has them split: Is an Evil Dead movie dependent on at least some humor?

In the latest offering a recently widowed woman and her in-laws seclude themselves in a remote house that has ties to the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis. Despite hitting the obligatory beats like the Book of the Dead and requisite Deadites, some critics like David Rooney of THR crave some laughs to break up the “grisly carnage” and “vicious cruelty.” Gorehounds, however, will be more than satisfied. Rooney writes:

Mark Kennedy of the AP agrees, rating the movie just 1 star out of 4. With so much elevated horror available these days (see Obsession and Backrooms’ record-breaking box office runs), Evil Dead Burn seems like a step in the wrong direction. Director Sébastien Vaniček promised to make this installment the franchise’s most brutal, and he did — just without being artful, clever or scary, Kennedy says, writing:

Maria Loreto of Polygon notes that while the first three Evil Dead movies brought slapstick comedy, the fourth and fifth offerings added gravitas with dramatic storylines. Evil Dead Burn is successful on neither of those levels, Loreto writes. Her Evil Dead Burn review reads:

Meanwhile, Nick Schager of the Daily Beast agrees that both revulsion and hilarity are the lifeblood of the Evil Dead movies, but unlike the above critics, he thinks that dichotomy is on full display in Evil Dead Burn. The movie, according to Schager, “finds the funny in the fantastically nasty — and, in doing so, proves a stomach-churningly amusing nightmare." The critic says:

Alison Foreman of IndieWire also says she found plenty of goofiness in the upcoming horror movie, and even more than that or how Sébastien Vaniček’s monsters contort victims into “inventive new shapes,” Foreman seems impressed by what the Evil Dead franchise has been able to do overall. In the critics’ words:

So there’s little question that if you’re looking for gore, Evil Dead Burn won’t disappoint. If you’re looking for Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell’s slapstick approach to Deadite horror, this may not be the movie for you. How important is humor to the franchise anyway?

Whatever your feelings on the topic, if you’re excited about this next Evil Dead offering, don’t let these reviews stop you from getting your ticket to the movie, which hits theaters Friday, July 10.

Paramount Skydance’s CBS News has seen a considerable amount of changes in recent months, with much of that being due to the installation of Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief. Further change could be on the way for the brand as well due to Paramount’s proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery. Should that arrangement be finalized, Paramount would have control of CNN as well as other entities. There’s, of course, the question of whether Weiss would run that network too, and sources are speaking out about that.

With Weiss currently running CBS’ news branch, it may almost seem like a given that she’d be tasked with running CNN if it does officially come into the corporate fold. Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison has yet to reveal his plans for CNN, though it’s been alleged that he’s still deciding whether he’ll put Weiss in charge of that operation. As noted by The New York Times, the Ted Turner-co-founded network is much larger than the brand Weiss is running now, and it stands to generate even more revenue.

It’s also said that one course of action would be to have Weiss – who hadn’t worked in broadcast news before joining the Eye Network – to work in tandem with a more experienced executive. Said comments come from two sources who are allegedly in the know regarding internal comments, and they also say a second exec would handle the network’s financial and technical matters.

Something that also reportedly remains unclear is how CNN’s chief executive, Mark Thompson, will figure into the company after the merger. Nevertheless, Thompson allegedly told top execs that he was not keen on splitting oversight of the brand with another person. That report should be taken with a grain of salt, though, as Thompson has not publicly discussed the matter, as of this writing.

All the while, employees at WBD-owned brands and Paramount have purportedly been bracing for a “blood bath” due to the impending merger. The consolidation of both companies is expected to lead to significant layoffs across different sectors of both companies. Said job eliminations could also (theoretically) seep into Warner’s aforementioned news brand as well. There’s also the matter of what kind of editorial direction Weiss would take the company in and, thus far, her decisions have been met with mixed-to-negative responses.

Bari Weiss drew significant backlash in late 2025 for several of her editorial-based moves, including her decision to initiate a town hall featuring Erika Kirk, the widow of late political activist Charlie Kirk. Also, Weiss caught flak for her last-minute decision to drop a 60 Minutes story about the Trump Administration reportedly deporting migrants to a prison in El Salvador. Weiss defended her decision to cut the story, arguing that more reporting needed to be done before it could be run.

The decision to drop the 60 story furthered the notion that Weiss and co. were exemplifying media bias, and accusations are still being made on that front. Former 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, who was fired by Weiss this past June, has been vocal about his issues with CBS News’ current leadership. Before he was let go, Pelley also had a heated discussion with the news magazine show’s new executive producer, Nick Bilton, during which he accused Weiss of “murdering” the show. Other series alums have also made claims about editorial bias like former EP Bill Owens and ex-host Steve Kroft.

When it comes to the Paramount/Warner Bros. merger, it’s been approved by the Antitrust Division of the United States Justice Department. The UK government, however, has since expressed its intention to take action amid the corporate takeover attempt. So, with that, it’s unclear as to when CNN will fully be folded into Paramount. These latest claims, however, suggest that whenever that happens, Bari Weiss – who reportedly has David Ellison’s support – could become a major player within CNN down the road.

Summer is the time for blockbusters, and nothing says popcorn flick quite like superheroes. The DCU’s second feature Supergirl is set to hit the 2026 movie calendar this weekend. First reactions to Supergirl praised Milly Alcock as the titular character, but now that reviews are out, the general consensus has been different. In fact, one critic has gone viral after completely lambasting the film.

So what's happening? And what are reviews saying?

One Critic’s Reaction To ‘Numbingly Flat’ Supergirl Causes Backlash

Supergirl reviews have dropped, but drawing nearly as much attention as the movie is Variety critic Owen Gleiberman and his strong disdain for the movie. And I mean strong. In his review, he calls the upcoming DC movie “super-horrendous,” saying it has the “worst script I can remember.” In his words:

He goes on to say he’s shocked that director Craig Gillespie was even capable of making something so “generic in its action and its attitudinizing.”

The backlash against the critic came quickly, particularly for one of Owen Gleiberman’s paragraphs that discussed Milly Alcock’s appearance, and people fired back on X (Twitter), writing:

• idk what movie you watched but I hope you get that hug you so desperately need. – hopsgeeknews
• Its fine not liking a movie but some of those digs seem pretty unprofessional like damn – TweetsByDM
• Criticising a woman’s look is your movie review? Fucking pathetic – EverythingDCU_

Not all of the comments aimed at the critic were so nice (or appropriate for repetition). One common refrain is that while it’s OK — and typical — for critics to disagree about a movie, Owen Gleiberman’s assessment is way harsher than those of his counterparts.

What Other Reviews Say About Supergirl

The majority of Supergirl reviews seem to fall kind of in the middle — not mind-blowingly great but not a disaster, either — like the low-stakes fun you often expect from a summer movie. CinemaBlend’s own Mack Rawden and Jessica Rawden had a pleasant experience at their screening, writing:

• Mack: Just a nice, fun crowd pleaser that pretty much anyone can enjoy. Really liked Milly, as well as the humor.
• Jessica: What Mack said, plus the runtime is so tight, which I personally appreciated. No bloat. I laughed out loud at Momoa’s lines in particular many times. It’s the perfect summer movie.

Other reviews seemed to fall more in line with these thoughts, as Tim Grierson of Screen International writes in his review:

Zaki Hasan of the San Francisco Chronicle also has an overall positive takeaway from an admittedly imperfect movie:

Amelia Emberwing at The Wrap also calls out Supergirl’s “muddled” action and says Jason Momoa was wholly unnecessary in this movie. Despite its faults, however, the heart of the movie remains intact throughout. Her review reads:

Last year's Superman was, indeed, more well-received than its followup, earning a Certified Fresh 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 57% for Milly Alcock’s flick. Just like the score, most of the reviews are in that middle range — and Supergirl’s box office projections aren’t A+ — but it’s clear that many don’t believe it’s bad enough to warrant such overly negative feedback.

Supergirl hits theaters Friday, June 26, so be sure to grab yourself a ticket so you can form your own opinion.

Summer is always a big time for blockbusters, and the 2026 movie calendar is certainly giving us a little bit of everything — we’ve got Star Wars, we’ve got a new Toy Story, and both the MCU and DCU will see representation. In fact, Supergirl is just the second feature in James Gunn and Peter Safran’s DC Universe, making the first reactions to the upcoming superhero movie especially important to fans. So what are people saying?

Last year’s Superman gave us a glimpse of the Man of Steel’s more jaded cousin Kara Zor-El (Milly Alcock), but now we’re moving far beyond that drunken cameo, and those who have caught an early screening have some pretty strong opinions about both Alcock as the titular antihero and Jason Momoa as Lobo. According to Drew Massey:

One X (Twitter) user says Milly Alcock proves she’s worthy of not just leading the DCU’s second movie but of carrying the future of the franchise. There are even aspects of Supergirl than this fan liked better than David Corenswet’s Superman:

Fay Watson of GamesRadar is one of many people getting Mad Max vibes from Supergirl, and she only wishes this kind of superhero flick would been available when she was a teenager. Watson says:

Germain Lussier of Gizmodo disagrees that the upcoming DC movie is better than Superman, but he does concede that it’s the “perfect” follow-up, with stronger characters that drive the movie’s emotional stakes. In the critic’s words:

Erik Davis notes an aloofness to Milly Alcock’s Kara, which was reflected in her informal attire at the Supergirl premiere. Davis posts:

Early reactions really are heaping praise on Milly Alcock, while all signs point to Jason Momoa having a blast as Lobo. Chris Killian of ComicBook.com writes:

Junior Felix of That Hollywood Show also calls the actress “perfect” for the role, and his only complaint about Lobo is that there wasn’t enough of him. Felix writes:

Brandon Davis admittedly isn’t as high on the superhero flick as others, though Milly Alcock doesn’t seem to be the issue at hand. Davis explains:

It’s encouraging to see so many positive responses to Milly Alcock and Jason Momoa in Supergirl, and now I’m even more pumped to see what the reviews have to say when they come out next week. The movie hits theaters on Friday, June 26, so get ready to grab that Lobo popcorn bucket (if you can call it a bucket) and reserve that ticket.

If you look hard enough, everything’s a reference – especially since Hollywood has been making movies for over a hundred years now. If you’re a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill, you might notice that one of the 2026 movie releases, They Will Kill You, pulls from the modern classic, and its writer/director told CinemaBlend exactly how.

As soon as Warner Bros’ They Will Kill You trailer dropped, the comment section was flooded with people talking about how much it reminds them of Tarantino’s beloved flick mashed in with great horror movies like Ready or Not and You’re Next. Here’s what writer/director Kirill Sokolov told us on the topic:

A simple benchmark of whether a movie reaches “iconic” status is whether you dressed up as one of the characters and people can clock the character right away. Uma Thurman’s role as The Bride in Kill Bill definitely remains a Halloween favorite 22 years after its release. The writer/director of They Will Kill You was inspired by emulating the kind of “power” the character has represented over the years. As he added:

Sokolov came up with the idea for They Will Kill You after moving into a massive 17-floor apartment building with his wife. It must have been an odd place to live because they started a “running joke” that it was owned by a cult. That then morphed into the filmmaker deciding to make the movie revolve around Asia, a young woman posing as a maid in an exclusive high-rise in order to find her long-lost sister Maria. It’s not long before Asia discovers she's trapped in a temple for Satan, and she is their latest intended sacrifice.

From a shot of Zazie Beetz’s feet to severed limbs to a rageful protagonist who fights her way through hordes of people, it’s not hard to see why Kill Bill is often talked about in association with this new release, which is now available to stream with an HBO Max subscription.

While They Will Kill You was certainly influenced by Kill Bill, Sokolov also pointed out the myriad of other references the movie has. In his words:

And of course, Kill Bill is a reference in of itself to kung-fu movies, spaghetti westerns and anime films Quentin Tarantino was inspired by. If you dig They Will Kill You, Sokolov also shared his thoughts on a potential sequel in our interview as well. Until then, it feels like the two films would be a bloody fun double feature!

CBS News has been going through a lot of turbulent change as the 2026 TV schedule moves along, with the firing of 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley making waves most recently. Meanwhile, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, is still working on a merger with Warner Bros. So, could the bad news coming out of The Eye Network's news division be bad news for this merger? One source shared their take on the matter.

From a legal perspective, according to an executive involved in the merger, the answer is no. However, in speaking to CNN, the source did note that the drama surrounding CBS News could have a negative impact on what Paramount is trying to do with Warner Bros. in a different way:

Pelley’s firing and his viral interview, where he fired more shots at CBS, came in the weeks ahead of Paramount execs' desired time to complete this merger. Considering how much negative publicity has already surfaced since the legal proceedings started, all the swipes being taken at CBS News don't help the network's image in the public's eye.

During that New York Times interview, Pelley spoke about the leadership at CBS News, which includes editor-in-chief Bari Weiss. He said they “don’t know what they’re doing,” and he noted that he thinks there’s a “subtle political bias that [he’s] never seen at 60 Minutes before.” He also explained that his hope is for the news division to “return to sanity.”

This all happened after Pelley was fired from 60 Minutes. However, right before that, it was reported that he went off on newly installed EP Nick Bilton and Weiss specifically, claiming that the latter "was brought in to kill” CBS News.

Over the course of all this, a 60 Minutes vet called out the firings, and the various shakeups behind the scenes at this CBS show have been criticized by many. Along with that, morale inside CBS News is low, with one source telling CNN:

Overall, the news surrounding this news division has not been good. Meanwhile, its parent company is trying to pull off a massive merger. According to this report, opponents of it are using what’s going on at CBS News as part of their campaigns to call it off. Adding to that, there are multiple states preparing a lawsuit that would challenge the merger “on antitrust grounds” and other factors that could be “wildcards” in this deal.

So, overall, there are various elements that could stand in the way of this merger being finalized. However, when it comes to what’s happened at CBS News, it won’t really have an impact legally, but the PR perspective could result in a different story.

Video game adaptations have a reputation for being hit-or-miss; however, some big wins over the recent years (The Minecraft Movie, The Super Mario Galaxy Movie, Five Nights at Freddy’s, etc.) have made gamers feel somewhat safe wading back into those waters. Mortal Kombat II is hitting the 2026 movie calendar on May 8, and while the critics have plenty of opinions about Karl Urban’s Johnny Cage and the R-rated fight sequences, it’s another scene-stealer that is dominating the reviews.

Josh Lawson is back for the sequel as Kano — despite the events of 2021’s Mortal Kombat — and the reviews are hailing the St. Denis Medical star as one of the upcoming action flick’s biggest highlights. Our own Nick Venable caught an early screening and had this to say about Mortal Kombat II:

Max Scoville of IGN rates it a “Great” 8 out of 10, writing that it’s a big win to have Josh Lawson back after he stole the show in the first movie. Between Kano and Karl Urban’s Johnny Cage, the pop culture wisecracks flow in this adaptation of “colorful weirdos beating the s#!t out of each other.” Scoville writes:

Amon Warmann of Empire gives the movie 3 out of 5 stars for creatively gory fighting and shallow-but-amusing characters. The story is paper-thin, the critic says, but it’s still “a lot of dumb fun.” Warmann’s review reads:

2026 is a big year for video game movies, but in the opinion of Aidan Kelley of Collider, Mortal Kombat II pales in comparison to the 1995 cult classic. However, the critic still rates this sequel 7 out of 10, saying it’s a “bloody good time,” thanks in part to CJ Bloomfield’s Baraka and Josh Lawson’s Kano, the latter of whom should be considered the definitive version of the character, due to how entertaining he is every time he’s on the screen. Kelley’s review of Mortal Kombat II reads:

W. Andrew Powell of The Gate also gives it high marks with an 8.5 out of 10, as the critic lists the reasons Mortal Kombat II works: It stays true to the game, features a bit of gore, boasts jaw-dropping special effects, and is “a little dumb” but still “loads of fun.” In Powell’s words:

Not all of the reviews are so kind. Kristy Puchko of Mashable stands by the opinion that not a single good live-action movie has come out of the Mortal Kombat IP, calling this offering an “ugly, nonsensical mess.” Yet even she gives Kano his flowers as the only character who refuses to take any of it seriously. In Puchko’s words:

That moment may have been brief for that critic, but overall the Mortal Kombat II reviews have been more positive than not, earning 70% so far on Rotten Tomatoes. If you’re excited to see Johnny Cage join the fighting fun or to see the humor Josh Lawson brings to the sequel, you don’t have to wait long. Mortal Kombat II hits theaters Friday, May 8.

In case you want a refresher or need to catch up on its 2021 predecessor, Mortal Kombat can be streamed with an HBO Max subscription.

The long-awaited third season of Euphoria is finally underway, with new episodes hitting the 2026 TV calendar every Sunday night, but its return hasn’t come without some bumps in the road. I’m talking specifically about those rumors of beef between Sydney Sweeney and Zendaya and the controversy surrounding Sweeney’s character Cassie. However, I’m not sure any of that matters too much, if the actress is right about how many people are watching.

Sydney Sweeney reposted a Euphoria-related headline to her Instagram Stories that states the Season 3 premiere surpassed 20 million viewers around the world. You can see image below:

The post from Warner Bros. — which features an image of another Euphoria star, Alexa Demie — claims that the more than 20 million eyeballs beats Season 2’s premiere numbers by 68%. WB’s original post says Episode 2 matched the premiere, drawing in approximately 8.5 million viewers in the United States in its first three days. That’s pretty impressive.

It makes sense that people would tune in. In addition to everyone who watched the first two seasons in real time, the show had four full years to encourage anyone with an HBO Max subscription to get caught up before its (possible) final season. So although the Euphoria Season 3 reviews were harsher than I expected them to be, I can see viewers sticking with it, if for no other reason, just to see it through.

Even before people started complaining about the seasons’s big changes, though, rumors were circulating about a rift between Zendaya and Sydney Sweeney — two of the series’ biggest stars.

A video of the cast was shared on social media that featured the two actresses mentioned above, as well as Hunter Schafer, Alexa Demie and Maude Apatow. When the ladies gathered for a group shot, however, Sydney Sweeney was not there, fueling rumors from the past that differing political views have caused a “bitter feud” between her and the Dune actress. They also didn’t pose together at the premiere, with sources alleging it would be bad optics for Zendaya.

Then there’s the on-screen drama that has apparently been turning some fans away — and inspiring real-life OnlyFans stars to speak out. Part of Sydney Sweeney’s character’s story is that she starts an OF account, where she dresses up as a baby and sucks on a pacifier. The UK, where OnlyFans was founded, is actually looking into laws that would criminalize such controversial “age play,” but even without a ban in place, many viewers didn’t like it.

Euphoria has always been controversial, freaking parents out with all of those penises, so the fact that some stories are rubbing fans the wrong way is absolutely nothing new. One has to wonder if a little bit of controversy might actually help the HBO drama to maintain those impressive premiere numbers. Will you be tuning in?

New episodes of Euphoria Season 3 air at 9 p.m. ET Sundays on HBO, streaming simultaneously on HBO Max.

The opportunity to do a mummy movie that was a truly terrifying experience was what Lee Cronin says attracted him to the project, and now, hitting the 2026 movie release calendar, we’ve got the finished product in Lee Cronin’s The Mummy. This iteration centers around a girl, Katie, who has been found alive(?) eight years after being abducted. First reactions had moviegoers dropping a lot of F-bombs, so let’s see if critics can expound on those a little now that they’ve had time to process.

Natalie Grace portrays the so-called monster in this iteration, but in addition to wondering if this even counts as a mummy movie, most critics seem to agree that at over two hours, the movie’s just simply too long. In his review of Lee Cronin’s The Mummy, Guy Lodge of Variety says there’s “no earthly (or unearthly) reason” for the upcoming horror movie to have a 133-minute runtime. Lodge writes:

Siddhant Adlakha of IGN rates it a “Good” 7 out of 10, writing that Lee Cronin’s The Mummy will be “one of the saddest, funniest, messiest, and above all, meanest horror flicks” you see this year. It’s so ugly that movie fans’ mileage for such horrors may vary, but genre fans are likely in for a decent ride. Adlakha says:

Dan Jolin of Empire gives it 3 stars out of 5, saying the “domestic chills, body horror, paranormal scares and gore-drenched action” should keep horror hounds happy, even as sticklers will likely agree this isn’t really a mummy movie. Jolin continues:

David Ehrlich of IndieWire grades the film a C-, writing that anyone who wants to see “a possessed child peel semi-congealed strips of rotten flesh off their leg” will have a blast at Lee Cronin’s The Mummy. But that may be it, Ehrlich says:

Johnny Oleksinski of the NY Post rates it 1.5 out of 4 stars, agreeing with other critics that it feels more like The Exorcist than a mummy movie and is both “diabolically long and determinedly uninteresting.” Lee Cronin’s effort made this critic yearn for the days of Dwayne Johnson’s rocky acting in The Scorpion King, and he found himself wishing Brendan Fraser would heroically swing in to save the day. Oleksinski writes:

While the critics seem to agree the mummy movie — if you can even call it that — doesn’t need to be over two hours, not all of the reviews are bad. Lee Cronin’s The Mummy has a 53% Rotten Tomatoes score as of this writing, so if you decide this sounds like an experience you need to see for yourself, you can catch the movie in theaters starting Friday, April 17.

Paramount Skydance is currently in the process of finalizing specifics to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery in a deal worth around $110 billion. All the while, various people have been speaking out about the proposed merger, with creatives across Hollywood having shared a plethora of thoughts. Now, a total of 1,000 creatives including the likes of Mark Ruffalo, Kristen Stewart and Adam McKay are voicing their opposition to the deal via an open letter. With that, Paramount has since issued a response to the sentiments.

Various Hollywood Creatives Sign Open Letter Denouncing The Paramount/Warner Bros. Merger

Signees of the initial open letter are actors, directors, producers and media pundits and, aside from those previously named, Don Cheadle, Alyssa Milano, Denis Villeneuve, Joaquin Phoenix and Jane Fonda were among the others who signed. Said letter was published early Monday morning, with Variety reporting about the situation. Via that statement, the stars collectively assert that they’re expressing their “unequivocal opposition” to the supposed merger. As for the reason for their position, they say the following:

Per the letter, the creatives also express concerns about the entertainment industry already being under “severe strain” due to continued media consolidation. It’s also argued that this “has accelerated the disappearance of the mid-budget film, the erosion of independent distribution, the collapse of the international sales market, the elimination of meaningful profit participation, and the weakening of screen credit integrity.” The letter closes with the creatives reiterating their stance and stressing the importance of “competition”:

Up to this point, the notion of competition within the industry has been mentioned as a key factor by those arguing against the merger. The potential economic impacts of the deal (which will seemingly result in various layoffs across different brands) has also been mentioned.

Paramount Releases A Statement In Response To The Letter

A reaction from Paramount was shared later on Monday, with the studio saying it can “hear and understand the concerns that some in our creative community have raised and respect the commitment to protecting and expanding creativity.” The company also emphasizes it knows “firsthand that this is also a moment when the industry has been facing significant disruption—and the need for strong, creative-first and well-capitalized companies that can continue to invest in storytelling has never been greater.” It also says:

Before Paramount landed Warner Bros., the latter was initially set to be acquired by Netflix, a prospect that also worried director James Cameron along with others. (Cameron’s own blistering response to the deal also garnered a reaction from Ruffalo.) The tides changed, however, after Paramount topped the steamer’s $83 billion bid. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos later confirmed that the price is what caused the company to back out, and he also expressed concerns about potential job losses. As for Paramount, its letter concludes with:

Nevertheless, creatives seem to be standing firm in their positions. That includes a prolific TV writer, as they both signed the letter and discussed that decision on their own.

Damon Lindelof Weighs In On The Paramount/WBD Merger

Among the many to lend their voices to the chorus of creatives speaking out against the merger was Damon Lindelof. The creator of Lost, The Leftovers and other shows took to Instagram to express his concerns about Warner Bros. being folded into Paramount. Lindelof also admitted that he was initially hesitant to voice his opposition publicly but decided to for several reasons, including the prospect of crew members losing work:

This message from Lindelof comes as he works on an upcoming DCU show for WBD, Lanterns. It’s also worth noting that some of the other signatories have projects that are in various stages of production at Warner Bros. As Paramount continues to go through the consolidation process, time will tell if other stars speak out.

When looking at this year’s lineup horror movie offerings, you’ve got some flicks like Scream 7 and Send Help, where you can expect plenty of laughs to cushion a good amount of gore. Lee Cronin’s The Mummy does not look like that kind of movie. Eight years after Charlie and Larissa Cannon’s daughter Katie went missing, she’s found alive in a sarcophagus, and as you can guess, things are not OK. First reactions have arrived, and let’s just say the F-bombs are flying freely.

Lee Cronin’s The Mummy is set to be released on the 2026 movie calendar on April 17, so early screenings are underway. For some like Courtney Howard, the “sick and demented” premise of what happened to the girl was still bothersome hours later. The critic calls the movie “gruesome and gnarly,” writing on X:

Critic Brandon Davis also seems to have had quite the experience when screening the upcoming horror movie, dropping an F-bomb as he says The Mummy should appeal to fans of The Conjuring. His post reads:

The movie stars Jack Reynor and Laia Costa as Katie’s parents, with Natalie Grace getting lots of praise for her performance as the titular character/abducted girl. According to Bill Bria of SlashFilm, it seems like Lee Cronin’s The Mummy might have one-upped other disturbing films in the genre, and he has strong feelings about it, writing:

One scene in particular stuck out for X user anthakneee, providing a fresh dose of nightmare fuel. The movie fan posts:

Erik Nordgren has some great adjectives to describe the experience, saying it would fit right in with Lee Cronin’s 2023 Evil Dead offering. Nordgren says:

He isn’t the only one making the Evil Dead Rise connection, with others agreeing that if you liked that one, The Mummy should be a win as well. Aaron Neuwirth of We Live Entertainment posts:

Chris Killian of ComicBook.com also agrees, calling this is definitely a new brand of mummy movie. The critic posts on X:

If you saw the trailer for Lee Cronin’s The Mummy and said, “Wow, that looks terribly dark and nightmarish," I’d say you were right, given the amount of F-bombs and otherwise strong first reactions from early screenings. If this reimagined version of the classic movie monster via child abduction intrigues you, be sure to check the supernatural fun out in theaters starting Friday, April 17.

There’s no doubt that actors have a pretty cool job, but in addition to the fun characters they get to play and interesting predicaments they get to act out, they’re also sometimes asked to do some pretty awkward sex scenes. I’d imagine it can be uncomfortable having to undress in front of someone you just met, and according to Charlie Day, that’s especially true if that person is Jennifer Aniston.

Jennifer Aniston and Charlie Day starred in Horrible Bosses, the 2011 comedy in which Day’s character, dental assistant Dale, makes a plan to kill his boss (Aniston) after she sexually harasses him and blackmails him with photos. Well, before they shot that scene, there had to be blackmail-worthy pics, right? So the It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia star said that made for an interesting first day on set. Day told EW:

That seems like a very appropriate reaction to have. I can’t even look at Jennifer Aniston’s Instagram without questioning all of my life choices, so I can only imagine having to disrobe in front of her actual eyes.

I mean, this is Jennifer Aniston we’re talking about here. She may not deprive herself, and she may not subscribe to the “no pain, no gain” method of fitness, but she also looks like she hasn’t aged since Friends. (Honestly, she has no business calling Paul Rudd an “ageless freak”!)

That said, Jennifer Aniston is a professional, and even though this movie pre-dated intimacy coordinators, I can’t imagine that she made Charlie Day feel anything but comfortable — hopefully the exact opposite experience of the Horrible Bosses characters they were portraying.

Other actors have opened up about being nude on set. Some are super comfortable, like Jennifer Lawrence, who felt no need to use a body double in No Hard Feelings (which is one of the sexually explicit movies you can watch on Hulu).

Channing Tatum, as well, didn’t seem to have the same issues as Charlie Day when he had to bare it all to Sandra Bullock — Jennifer Aniston’s longtime buddy — on Day 2 of The Lost City. However, I’d imagine Tatum meeting Peter Dinklage for the first time “full monty” was an experience from The Roofman that neither actor will soon forget.

All of these instances of actors getting naked with someone just a day or two after meeting sounds incredibly intimidating, but Kristen Bell’s most awkward sex scene may have all of these guys beat. On House of Lies, she spent an afternoon pretending to have “raunchy sex” with her best friend Ryan Hansen just hours after Hansen had been a witness at Bell’s wedding to Dax Shepard.

In reality, I’m sure Charlie Day wasn’t anywhere near as pasty or doughy as he felt while stripping down in front of Jennifer Aniston, but I can certainly understand how one would feel that way.

There are lots of horror flicks hitting the 2026 movie schedule this month, including Undertone (which is so scary you may not want to watch it alone) and Ready or Not 2: Here I Come. There’s also been a lot of anticipation for Zazie Beetz’s next project, They Will Kill You, which sees her character Asia Reaves, an ex-con, take a job as a housekeeper in a New York City high-rise that houses a satanic cult. Critics have seen the film, and they can’t stop talking about Beetz’s ferocious performance.

They Will Kill You features an impressive cast around Zazie Beetz, including Myha'la, Paterson Joseph, Tom Felton, Heather Graham and Patricia Arquette. Chase Hutchinson of IGN gives it a “Great” 8 out of 10, praising the lead actress for her action skills. The critic also compliments the choreography and camerawork, calling the movie “a gonzo, gruesome, gutsy little gem.” Hutchinson continues:

Zachary Lee of The Wrap says Zazie Beetz embodies such “ferocity” that we see her earn her stripes as an action hero in real time over the course of They Will Kill You. The critic calls the movie “live-action anime” for its zany sense of play, writing:

Meagan Navarro of Bloody Disgusting rates the movie 3.5 skulls out of 5, calling Zazie Beetz an “unstoppable force of nature” whose performance is well worth the price of admission. The actress takes director Kirill Sokolov’s stunt-heavy romp by the throat and never lets go, Navarro says, writing:

Katie Rife of IndieWire gives it a B-, questioning how such a gory, excessive, super-stylized movie that’s hellbent on excitement can end up feeling so anticlimactic. Rife explains:

Siddhant Adlakha of Variety admits that Zazie Beetz is “wonderfully committed” as our blood-soaked heroine, but he ultimately agrees with the above critic that it all becomes too much — just a series of energetic action moments thrown together with little connective tissue. Adlakha says:

Critics’ opinions of They Will Kill You are overall positive — especially when it comes to our action/comedy/horror hero Zazie Beetz. The movie stands with a 73% rating on Rotten Tomatoes ahead of its opening, so if you want to witness all of the zany action in theaters, you can do so starting Friday, March 27.

The battle for Warner Bros. appears to be over, and Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos is shedding more light on the company’s failed bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, following Paramount’s hostile takeover. Sarandos is making it clear he doesn’t think the outcome came down to the regulatory hurdles many assumed, and he’s straight calling out Paramount’s "narrative" on how things went down.

In a wide-ranging interview with Politico, Sarandos touched on everything from European regulations to YouTube as a competitor, but the collapsed Warner Bros. deal still loomed large. And when it came up, he pushed back on the idea that government scrutiny was ever the real problem. Instead, he suggested the bigger issue was perception. He explained:

That’s a pretty direct claim, as Sandros seems to be arguing that the concerns around it were amplified in a way that didn’t match reality. He also made a point to separate the actual process from the public conversation around it. He continued:

Vertical deals, which involve companies operating in different parts of the same ecosystem, don’t typically raise the same red flags as mergers between direct competitors. Sarandos is essentially saying Netflix’s bid fell into that safer category, even if it didn’t play that way publicly.

Interestingly, he also downplayed the idea that politics played any meaningful role. Despite headlines surrounding Donald Trump and even calls to remove a Netflix board member, the streaming executive described that moment as little more than social media noise, not something that actually shifted the outcome.

Zooming out, the Warner Bros. bid was never positioned as essential for Netflix anyway. Sarandos reiterated that it was a “nice-to-have” opportunity at the right price, not something the company needed to continue growing. He emphasized that the streamer is still expanding on its current path, with or without a major acquisition, focusing on giving viewers more bang for their Netflix subscription buck.

While Netflix’s potential takeover of Warner Bros. wasn’t exactly met with universal enthusiasm, the reaction to Paramount stepping in appears even more negative. Reports suggest the Paramount deal could lead to significantly deeper job cuts than what was expected under Netflix’s proposal. On top of that, there are ongoing antitrust concerns, especially after Paramount signaled plans to combine its two streaming services, which could be a good thing for folks already paying for both an HBO Max subscription and a Paramount+ subscription.

There’s a whole lot of change going on in Hollywood right now, especially with the merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. However, one thing that’s not changing is Tom Cruise’s willingness to do death-defying stunts. In fact, he most recently did one as Paramount celebrates its new era.

Over the weekend, it was reported that Tom Cruise was seen on top of the Paramount lot’s iconic water tower, per THR. Sources say that the Mission: Impossible star was on top of the tower because he was shooting scenes for a video that’s about the “brand new day” Paramount is entering.

Now, this is by no means the biplane stunt from Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning or the motorcycle jump from Dead Reckoning. However, it certainly is a jaw-dropping action moment. It’s not like people just casually climb this water tower.

Actually, this stunt Cruise pulled for Paramount reminds me more of the action sequence he did for the Olympics back in 2024 as the baton was passed from Paris to LA. For that stunt, he jumped off the Stade de France into the stadium and then rode his motorcycle out. It then cut to a pre-taped bit in LA, where he brought the Olympic flag to California (which will be the home of the next summer games).

While we don’t know how elaborate this Paramount stunt was, it does show, once again, that Cruise is willing to take part in some big action for events that happen outside the movies.

This comes after David Ellison and his company, Skydance, acquired Paramount. Crusie notably has a strong relationship with both of them, too. All the Mission: Impossible movies, both Top Gun films and other Cruise classics, like Days of Thunder and The Firm, were released by Paramount. (Unsurprisingly, you can stream every movie mentioned here with a Paramount+ subscription.) Skydance also co-financed movies like Ghost Protocol, Rogue Nation, the Jack Reacher films and more. So, it’s not shocking that he put his action skills to work to celebrate the new era this studio is entering.

Interestingly, Cruise signed a “strategic partnership” with Warner Bros back in January of 2024. His movie Digger is the only film to come of that so far, and it will be released later on the 2026 movie schedule. However, considering the Paramount and Warner Bros. merger, he’s back where he was.

Now, Cruise wasn’t the only famous person working on this project that is still kind of a mystery. While it’s unclear if it will be released to the public or just used internally, we do know that Jon M. Chu is directing it. That makes sense considering the Wicked director signed a first-look deal with Paramount back in December. At the moment, it’s unclear if any other high-profile people are involved in this video project.

Apparently, this video is meant to highlight the legacy and history of the studio while also giving insight into its future. Overall, this deal between Paramount and Warner Bros. has been a big point of contention in Holllywood and if it is finalized, it’s sure to make a massive impact. However, while a lot changes, we can always count on Tom Cruise to be ready for a death-defying stunt.

There have been about a bajillion adaptations of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, and in fact, Guillermo del Toro’s version has racked up several Academy Award nominations for next week’s ceremony. Already, however, we’re turning our attention to the next iteration, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s The Bride!, which promises to be something completely unique, as the monster, "Frank," seeks a companion creation. Critics screened the film ahead of its release on the 2026 movie calendar, and they have strong — but divisive — opinions.

Jessie Buckley — an Oscar nominee this year herself — portrays the titular creation, with Christian Bale playing Frankenstein’s monster and Annette Bening as Dr. Euphronious, the scientist tasked with creating life from the body of a murdered woman. That’s not where the talent or the surprises end, either as CinemaBlend’s review of The Bride! calls it “a masterpiece on every level.” Nick Venable rates it a perfect 5 out of 5 stars, writing:

Tomris Laffly of RogerEbert gives it 3 stars out of 4, calling it “a fantastical creative explosion you can’t look away from.” It’s fun to see Jessie Buckley go fully unhinged, but it may be even more satisfying to see Maggie Gyllenhaal follow up The Lost Daughter with such a big swing that shows her operating with no limits. Laffly says:

Luke Hicks of AV Club gives the upcoming horror movie a B+, noting that Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jessie Buckley are intentionally making the audience uncomfortable, as the latter portrays her character with a brilliant, vile, vigorous, take-no-prisoners attitude that Frankenstein never had. Hicks continues:

To that end, there are indeed some less-than-complimentary reactions, with IGN critic Hanna Ines Flint giving it a "Mediocre" 5 out of 10 and calling Maggie Gyllenhaal’s movie a “gaudy feminist reimagining.” The critic writes:

Johnny Oleksinski of the New York Post straight-up calls it “one of the worst movies I’ve seen in this job,” and awards it zero stars. The script, Oleksinski says, feels like something scribbled down at 4 a.m. in a dream journal. The critic continues:

With critics’ ratings ranging from 0 to 5 stars, you’ll have to use your judgment — with the help of these opinions — to decide if Maggie Gyllenhaal’s second directorial effort is one you want to partake in. The best part is, you don’t have to wait. The Bride! hits theaters on Friday, March 6.

The battle for Warner Bros. appears to be over, although we’ve said that once before. After initially losing out to Netflix, Paramount initiated a hostile takeover that was ultimately successful after the studio under David Ellison upped its bid to a point that Netflix was unwilling to meet. The change in fortune for WB was a shock to many, and now Netflix CFO Spencer Neumann has given us some slight insight into why the streaming giant walked away.

Appearing at the Morgan Stanley Media & Technology Conference, Neumann was specifically asked why Netflix decided not to compete with Paramount following its increased offer for Warner Bros. The CFO started with a joke (via Deadline), making reference to the prolonged battle that was waged over the studio. He said…

Once the jokes were made, however, Spencer Neumann gave a bit more actual insight into the choice. In the end, he says it simply came down to a financial decision. While the price Netflix had initially agreed to pay for Warner Bros. was seen as the right price for the right assets, paying more just didn’t make sense. He explained…

Price was almost certainly a big factor. After the Warner Bros. board accepted Paramount’s new proposal, it gave Netflix a few days to respond. However, it was only hours later that Netflix announced that it would not be beating the offer. That indicates there was never really much discussion about spending more money.

However, there was likely more to the calculus than simply the price. The fact is that many in Hollywood didn’t love this merger in the first place, and were critical of the decision when Netflix was the one taking over. There were a lot of worries that the streamer, which has never been shy about its feelings that the theatrical distribution model was old news, would reduce or eliminate the number of WB movies in theaters. There were also concerns on the streaming front if Netflix took over HBO Max.

People may not have loved the idea of Netflix buying Warner Bros., but there’s a lot of evidence that people like the idea of Paramount buying Warner Bros. even less. There are expected to be far more layoffs under the Paramount deal than there would have been under Netflix. And there are still competition concerns as Paramount has already announced plans to merge Paramount+ with HBO Max.

Having walked away, Netflix now looks like the good guy among those who think the Paramount deal is worse for Hollywood. And not only does it not cost Netflix any money, but the company has actually made money, as there was a nearly $3 billion “kill fee” attached to its deal with Warner Bros.

When it was announced that Netflix had agreed to buy Warner Bros., it was seen as a massive shift in the status quo of Hollywood. It was suggested that nothing would be the same again. A lot of Hollywood’s biggest names didn’t love the idea of the streamer taking over a legacy film studio. Now, of course, we know that the deal with Netflix isn’t happening. But if you thought the whole of Hollywood is happy with it, think again.

Following its initial hostile takeover attempt, Paramount upped its offer to buy Warner Bros., and Netflix decided not to compete, leaving the door open for two of the biggest film studios to become one. People may not have loved the idea of Netflix buying Warner Bros., but there are plenty of voices decrying this deal as well. Deadline spoke to an unnamed insider at a rival studio who said:

As with the merger of Disney and Fox before it, the biggest concern is that the two studios combining shrinks the number of companies that are doing this work. It’s fully expected that the newly merged company will simply produce fewer films and TV shows than they did separately. Paramount has already confirmed plans to merge Paramount+ and HBO Max into a single streaming service.

Because the merger will take place between two nearly identical companies, the number of layoffs that will take place as a result of position redundancies (what Paramount refers to as “synergies") is expected to be high. The belief was that, because Netflix didn’t already have large-scale theatrical distribution or cable channels, more jobs would be saved.

Whatever ends up happening, it’s difficult to imagine that the result of a Paramount/Warner Bros. combined company won’t have ramifications that will be felt in Hollywood forever. An unnamed screenwriter/producer told Deadline that this merger will be on par with the addition of sound in films, saying:

While that may seem hyperbolic, it’s difficult to imagine that a major studio merger won’t have far-reaching consequences, for good or ill. That said, it will likely be several months before this merger is complete, and we may not actually see what the true impact of it all is for years to come.

Pop culture imbibers in Hollywood and the world beyond have been feeling some kind of way in reaction to the bombshell shift in Warner Bros.’ acquisition. Paramount’s updated bid won out over the highly scrutinized deal that Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos had pretty much set in stone. Alas, Paramount boss David Ellison couldn’t seem to let it be, and now a revised swath of speculative conversations has risen up, focusing both on Paramount’s WB plans and Netflix’s future without the legacy studio.

Ever the businessman, Sarandos has been expectedly disappointed but measured and future-geared when addressing the rather quick and unexpected conclusion to this whole ordeal. He agrees with other experts expecting a massive exodus via layoffs, especially given Paramount only recently laid off between 1,000-2,000 employees in Q4 2025, and he expects both Paramount and Warner Bros. will suffer a severe downtick in productions to balance the money being spent. Does that mean Serandos hopes to offset that by filling theaters with Netflix movies? Not exactly.

Speaking with Bloomberg after Netflix's deal imploded, Sarandos was asked if he still planned to stick to his plans to get more Netflix movies into theaters despite the deal not going through, to which he replied:

Not a great sign, but an understandable one. As a studio whose projects have for years been crafted with the binge-viewing model in mind, Netflix hasn't ever set up the proper deals and infrastructures that would allow for a regular flow of the company's films to enjoy theatrical windows ahead of streaming debuts. That certainly would have changed with Warner Bros. on board, considering that studio's been in the theater business for a full century. But without that progress-making step in the process, Netflix is back at ground zero, though with a better grasp of how that model works.

That said, Sarandos did speak about the strategic wins that Netflix did have on the theatrical side in 2025, and seemed to imply that success will help to fuel more crossover releases as times goes by. Still thoguh, he stopped short of ever saying, "We'll definintely put movies on the big screen," and two of the experimental examples he brought up are for episodic TV series.

It's almost surprising that Ted Sarandos doesn't have a bigger lineup of projects he thinks could be theater-ready, considering KPop Demon Hunters managed to win the box office with a lyrics-filled singalong release, while Stranger Things' finale also drew massive audiences for a viewing experience that they could have just stayed home to have. Granted, those were both global phenomenons before the non-streaming screenings were worked out, which helps justify why One Piece Season 2 is the next project being tested out.

At this point, Sarandos is off the hook from theater chain owners seeking answers about WB's release future, all while Paramount's David Ellison has revealed Paramount+ and HBO Max will be merging to form a single streaming entity. During the same investors call, Ellison committed to releasing 15 Warner Bros. movies and 15 Paramount Pictures movies into theaters a year, for a combined total of "at least 30 films annually," via Variety. Anyone worried about Netflix's output would hopefully be soothed by Ellison's update.

Fans looking to get an early peek at One Piece's revealing premiere and follow-up episode can find both playing in theaters on Tuesday, March 10, with tickets currently available.

After months of speculation, it seems that Warner Bros. is now officially set to be acquired by another major entertainment conglomerate, Paramount Skydance. It was reported at the end of February that Paramount placed a high bid that satisfied board members at WB. By presenting that offer, which is reportedly worth $110 billion, Paramount exceeded the bid from Netflix, which originally appeared to be in the prime position to get WB. Now, in the aftermath of the deal, the streamer’s CEO is discussing the potential ramifications.

Netflix initially released a company statement about its decision not to place a new bid for WB and its assets. Company co-CEO Ted Sarandos didn’t immediately provide a response to the development, but he had more than a few thoughts to share this weekend. During a lengthy conversation, the exec was asked for his take on what this massive agreement (for which Paramount is borrowing money to cover) could mean for the entertainment industry at large. Sarandos responded by speaking to the economic side of the equation:

Sarandos’ mention of “less people working” has been cited as a concern in the aftermath of the WB/Paramount news being announced. With the consolidation of the media companies, it’s pretty much a certainty that jobs will be cut across different divisions. Sources allege that employees for both companies are expecting a “blood bath.” A separate report even dropped claims about staffers at the Paramount-owned CBS News dropping f-bombs over the prospect of jobs being lost due to WB-held CNN being brought into the fold.

During the time that it appeared Netflix would land WB, Ted Sarandos defended his company’s plans to acquire its competitor. Sarandos – who testified during a Senate subcommittee hearing led by Utah Senator Mike Lee – was adamant about the vitality of his brand’s proposal. Sarandos also took issue with Paramount trying to “circumvent” the WB/Netflix agreement at the time and even took legal action against the streamer. When asked about that fellow “buyer,” Sarandos summed up the company as follows:

A potential Netflix deal also sparked its share of concerns amongst consumers and creatives, especially due to the prospect of the streamer possibly shortening theatrical windows for movies. Most notably, director James Cameron called out Sarandos and claimed he wanted to institute a 17-day window, a claim Sarandos denied. While Sarandos and co. did indeed want to acquire Warner, he explained why they decided to back out:

Questions still remain in regard to the Paramount/WB deal, which still must go through regulatory approval and meet other requirements. It’s hard to say exactly what lies ahead if the agreement goes through completely, but it’s fair to say that the entertainment landscape will look a lot different. Asked whether he believed the deal would be approved, Sarandos said he had “no idea” and that he “wouldn’t want to speculate.”

The Warner Bros. acquisition saga took a major turn this past week, as the studio’s board determined that a new bid from Paramount Skydance proved to be “superior” to the one Netflix offered. With that, the streamer’s heads confirmed it wouldn’t match the offer, paving the road for Paramount to acquire WB. Of course, there have since been a myriad of responses from people within and outside the entertainment industry. Now, per a new report, some CBS employees allegedly had f-bombs to drop after the news came down.

CBS is a division of Paramount and, as of late, the brand has been going through changes, especially when it comes to its news branch. The prospect of a merger with another massive entertainment brand would, of course, bring a plethora of other changes, and some workers at the Eye Network apparently aren’t happy. The Guardian obtained comments from one staffer, who reportedly responded to the merger news by saying, “Fuck, fuck, fuck.” Meanwhile, an unnamed producer simply said, “Well, fuck.”

As suggested by The Guardian, those f-bombs seem to symbolize the uneasiness that some employees feel over the potential ramifications of the merger. If the Warner Bros. acquisition is finalized, Paramount will also be in control of another major news entity, CNN. So there’s a firm chance that, as has been the case with past corporate consolidations, that layoffs will ensue. To that point, another CBS employee purportedly told the news outlet that they believed their department would be cut due to the WB merger.

On the other side of this equation, some CNN employees were also interviewed as part of this report. A member of that staff admitted that “because CNN is so big and makes so much money, it was always going to attract the Ellisons,” who head up Paramount. When asked for comment, a producer at the network provided a grim outlook:

Much has been said about Bari Weiss, who was installed as the editor-in-chief of CBS News in October 2025. Some of Weiss’ decisions have been questioned by analysts, with insiders also alleging that there have been growing pains for staffers internally. Weiss – who’s allegedly been granted a pricey security detail – notably made headlines this past December when the decision was made to pull a 60 Minutes story about Trump Administration’s reported deportation of migrants to an El Salvador-based prison.

That aside, CBS had already experienced layoffs due to Paramount’s merger with Skydance, which was formally approved in 2025. Since then, the network has even lost anchors, with Maurice DuBois even signing off from CBS News last year. There’s also been speculation about host Gayle King’s future at the company, though King herself – who called out leakers – stated that she wasn’t going to give any energy to those rumors.

Whatever specifically happens with CBS News should the Paramount/Warner Bros. merger go through, staffing changes are inevitable. It was previously reported that employees were expecting a “blood bath,” and those sentiments align with the f-bombs recently shared by other employees.

Yesterday was a big day in Hollywood, but not necessarily in a good way. In quick succession, we got the news that Warner Bros. had accepted the latest bid from Paramount, and that Netflix was declining to beat it. That means that although Warner Bros. and Netflix had a deal, Paramount will be the ultimate winner, assuming antitrust regulators don’t stop it, which seems unlikely. Now, Warner Bros. employees are reportedly preparing for a "blood bath."

While the outcome is a shocking one, considering how much Netflix acted like their deal was done, for many in Hollywood, the Warner Bros. situation was seen as a choice between bad options. Both mergers were seen as bad news for Warner Bros. as a studio, and for Hollywood in general. An unnamed Hollywood agent spoke to Page Six and said the only thing that was truly being decided was the method of execution. The agent said…

The reason it’s terrible for the industry and the area is that, almost certainly, a large number of people are going to find themselves out of a job as the two companies merge and "redundancies" are eliminated. Thousands lost their jobs after Disney purchased Fox, and that merger could be a model for what is about to happen here.

Now, one might expect that major layoffs and corporate changes were going to happen regardless of who won out. However, according to Page Six, the Paramount merger is likely to be much worse than a Netflix deal would have been from a layoff standpoint.

The issue is that since Paramount and Warner Bros. are both 100-year-old legacy media companies, they are going to have essentially identical org charts, as they’re in the same business that is run in the same way. The result is what one employee expects will be a “blood bath” of layoffs. Another employee said…

By comparison, since Netflix’s theatrical distribution business is much smaller and it doesn’t have a TV network or cable channels, there likely would have been more opportunities for Warner Bros. people to keep their jobs if they started working for Netflix. Warner Bros. employees were reportedly stunned by the news yesterday, with at least one person responding simply, “holy f-----g shit.”

It’s likely to be several months before we ever get to the layoff portion of this deal, as the merger still needs regulatory approval. However, once that point comes, we can be sure that many people, likely those who are currently part of both companies, will find themselves looking for work in a Hollywood that simply has fewer jobs available than it did just a few years ago.

When it was announced that Netflix had entered into a deal to purchase Warner Bros., it sent a shockwave through the entertainment industry. Nobody knew quite what it meant that the streaming giant was buying a legacy movie studio. But since the announcement, there has been little time to figure out what the future holds, because Paramount, which seemingly lost out on its bid, hasn’t given up.

Paramount launched a hostile takeover bid of Warner Bros. in the days following the announcement of the Netflix deal. It’s been offering more money to shareholders, though Netflix argues Paramount is a much bigger risk. Initially, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos hadn't seemed to be worried about Paramount, but in a recent comment to Deadline, he appeared a bit annoyed by the whole thing, saying…

From a pure dollars-and-cents perspective, Paramount has had the better deal, offering more money per share than Netflix had offered, although Paramount’s deal is for the entirety of Warner Bros., including the linear networks that have been spun off into a separate company. Netflix only wants the movie and TV studio. The WB board is currently in talks with Paramount that might sweeten that deal even more, likely requiring Netflix to increase its own offer if it wants to keep its deal in place.

One of Paramount’s major arguments regarding why it is the better option than Netflix has surrounded the market share of the industry that Netflix would have if it added Warner Bros., mostly focused on the streaming dominance that would arguably exist if market leader Netflix added HBO Max. However, Ted Sarandos calls that “misinformation” and argues that the fight should just be over who offers shareholders the better deal. He continued…

Paramount has even taken the battle to court in an attempt to prevent Netflix's acquisition. Many in Hollywood have spoken out about the fight for Warner Bros. While nobody seems to love the idea of Warner Bros. being sold to either party, some do feel one or the other would be a worse option.

Analysts seem to think that a better, or at least a higher dollar value, deal from Paramount will be on offer by the end of the company’s seven-day window to offer one today. At that point, Netflix may need to offer something more itself, or walk away. In the end, either a Netflix or Paramount purchase of Warner Bros. will be a major shift in the industry with long-reaching repercussions. We won’t even know what these changes might be until we know which deal is moving forward.

Months after Netflix’s planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery was announced, many within Hollywood are continuing to discuss the potential impact it could have. Opinions have varied in regard to the merits of the agreement, and some individuals haven’t held back when sharing their thoughts. Filmmaker James Cameron has since weighed in, and he didn’t hold back when dropping his take. Since then, actor Mark Ruffalo has responded to Cameron’s comments, and he did so by posing a question of his own.

Cameron recently wrote a letter to Utah Senator Mike Lee, who leads the U.S. Senate’s subcommittee on antitrust and is analyzing the WB/Netflix deal. In his letter, Cameron asserted that the proposed deal would “be disastrous for the theatrical motion picture business”. A big concern for Cameron is the prospect of the streamer shortening the theatrical window for Warner Bros. films. The Avatar helmer claimed the streamer wanted to decrease the window to 17 days (which is a claim Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos denies).

The Titanic director’s comments eventually went viral, and Ruffalo was among those to see them. When responding to Cameron’s sentiments on X, Ruffalo expressed curiosity about the filmmaker’s thoughts on another aspect of this ongoing business situation:

What the Marvel actor is alluding to is the fact that Paramount Skydance has also been vying to acquire Warner Bros., even in the aftermath of the company’s leaders accepting Netflix’s almost $83 billion bid. The last couple of years have seen Paramount go through immense changes, specifically in terms of the Skydance merger that was completed in 2025. When it comes to this particular matter, Ruffalo appears to be questioning whether Cameron would give the same energy if Paramount were in the position to own WB.

Even ahead of the attempts from Paramount Skydance’s big brass to acquire WB, the media conglomerate was already making headlines. The David Ellison-led company has been implementing changes to its approach to content, including that of CBS News. Some analysts have argued that some of those changes reflect politically right-leaning ideologies and, with that, there’s been speculation about what that could mean for WB if Paramount acquired it.

As far as reactions to the Netflix/WB deal go, a few other filmmakers have chimed in as James Cameron has. Directors Guild of America President Christopher Nolan discussed what a “huge blow” it would be for a major studio to get folded into another. Anora director Sean Baker also spoke out about the agreement and declared that filmmakers should be seeking increased theatrical release windows.

Netflix’s Ted Sarandos has sought to set the record straight on his company’s intentions, as he’s stressed that a 45-day window would be in effect should WB be brought into the fold. When responding to Cameron’s letter with one of his own, Sarandos also claimed he and Cameron were on the same page when the latter met with his company in December. At the same time, Netflix execs have chastised Paramount’s attempts (which include a hostile takeover) to acquire WB. In January, Paramount also filed a lawsuit in an attempt to get Netflix to share financial information regarding its reason for wanting to buy Warner Bros.

Time will tell how all of this ultimately pans out for Warner Bros. Discovery, Netflix and Paramount Skydance as time goes on. All the while, it can only be speculated as to whether James Cameron will offer a direct response to Mark Ruffalo’s inquiry.

One of the biggest topics of discussion within Hollywood over the past few months has been Netflix’s planned acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery. Ultimately, WB accepted the streamer’s near-$83 billion bid, though Paramount Skydance is still making efforts to acquire the studio itself. All the while, many industry professionals have been weighing in on the potential ramifications of the deal, and director James Cameron recently shared some blunt thoughts. With that, Netflix’s Ted Sarandos issued a response to the filmmaker's take.

What Did James Cameron Say About The WB/Netflix Deal?

Cameron recently wrote a letter to Utah senator Mike Lee, who oversees the Senate’s subcommittee on antitrust. Lee and that governing body held a hearing earlier this month, during which they discussed the potential effects of the WB/Netflix merger with Sarandos. When addressing Lee, Cameron didn’t hold back his feelings and cited Sarandos for calling movie theaters “an outdated concept” and an “outmoded idea.” Cameron also shared the following thoughts on the matter:

Throughout his career, James Cameron has championed quality theatrical experiences, and his comments seem to mirror concerns that some of his other peers seem to have about the WB sale. Something that seems to give the Avatar filmmaker pause is the notion of a very small theatrical window and, in his letter (which was shared with Deadline), he claimed Ted Sarandos and co. wanted to commit to a 17-day window for films to play in theaters. Sarandos responded to that claim and shared more sentiments when issuing his reaction.

How Ted Sarandos Responded To James Cameron’s Criticisms

Just recently, Sarandos also wrote a letter of his own to Mike Lee in response to Cameron’s take on his company’s multi-billion dollar deal. Sarandos showed reverence to Cameron early in his letter (which Deadline obtained) and also expressed his love for Cameron’s filmography. However, the exec went on to weigh in on why the Oscar winner’s claims were inaccurate:

Ted Sarandos also shared alleged details regarding the meeting he and his colleagues at Netflix had with James Cameron after the deal was announced in December 2025. And, according to Sarandos, Cameron was supposedly more interested in discussing another topic than theatrical windows:

Sarandos also expressed his displeasure with Cameron’s letter while appearing on the Fox Business program The Claman Countdown. The co-CEO, who’s spoken about the viability of movie theaters in the past, said he was “particularly surprised and disappointed that James chose to be part of the Paramount disinformation campaign that's been going on for months about this deal.”

Paramount is indeed still trying to buy Warner Bros. Discovery months after the David Ellison-headed company tried to launch a hostile takeover bid. That attempt as well as subsequent bids have been rejected. More recently, Paramount filed a lawsuit in an attempt to have Netflix disclose financial information regarding its decision to buy WB. Netflix execs subsequently chastised Paramount Skydance for its continued attempts to derail the WB deal.

All the while, filmmakers still seem to be processing the prospect of Netflix acquiring Warner Bros. Oscar-winning director Sean Baker reacted to the deal, saying that “filmmakers have to put our foot down” in the hope of expanding theatrical windows. Directors Guild of America President Christopher Nolan also expressed uncertainty about the road head. Time will tell how this major deal plays out and how other directors like Nolan or James Cameron might respond.

The buzzword of the day is AI. Large Language Models have become the cutting edge of technology with their ability to take in massive amounts of data and then spit out “new” content based on a simple prompt from a user. Unfortunately for the owners of copyrights, some of that “new” material involves the use of popular characters, and the owners of those characters, including Netflix and the company it’s working to purchase, Warner Bros., are threatening legal action.

It’s not AI companies in general, but a particular platform that has become the specific target of media companies at this moment. ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, recently released Seedance 2.0, a short-form video platform, and users have applied the tech to various famous characters. Some of those characters are owned by Warner Bros., and the studio has sent ByteDance’s Global General Counsel John Rogovin (who formerly worked for WB) a cease and desist letter which reads (via Deadline) in part…

You’ve likely seen the results of these AI videos going viral on TikTok and other social media platforms. They frequently take the form of battles between popular characters, Superman vs. Wolverine or Ethan Hunt vs. John Wick, with all the characters looking not just like the characters, but like the actors who play them in the movies. Likeness rights have been an issue with AI in the past.

A threat of legal action from an industry giant like Warner Bros. is certainly enough that ByteDance is surely taking notice, but things are only getting more complicated for the AI firm as the company that’s likely to buy Warner Bros., Netflix, as issued its own cerase and desist, as it accuses Seedance of violating multiple copyrights including Bridgerton, Stranger Things, Squid Game and Kpop Demon Hunters.

Netflix’s order, according to Deadline, is a bit more forceful than the one from Warner Bros. It gives Byte Dance three days to respond by removing all infringing content and implementing safeguards to prevent future infringement.

Other studios like Paramount and Disney have also joined in Netflix's cease and desist motion. It makes for strange bedfellows, considering Paramount and Netflix are currently both looking to buy Warner Bros.

Disney recently inked a deal with OpenAI that will give its AI video platform access to Disney characters, but because Disney has made that deal, it needs to make sure that competing platforms don’t continue to use the same characters. Disney's deal is specifically for animated characters and does not give rights to any voices or live-action character designs.

Perhaps the result of this legal battle will be the protected characters disappearing, or perhaps ByteDance will look to make deals as Disney has done and simply pay for the rights to use the characters. What does seem certain is that the technology and the content that technology uses still have a lot left to figure out.

Reports of Netflix winning the bidding war for Warner Bros seem to have been premature. The legendary movie studio announced today that it would reengage Paramount for a limited one week window in order to get the company’s best and final offer. Not surprisingly, Netflix wasn’t too pleased with the development. Executives released a statement ripping Paramount’s “antics,” though they offered formal approval for the negotiating window as a means to “finally resolve” the ongoing mess.

The back-and-forth is all related to a vote on March 20th. That’s when shareholders of Warner Bros are going to decide whether to accept Netflix’s offer to buy the company. The Board has already approved and recommended the deal and is asking shareholders to vote for it. Paramount executives, however, have very publicly said they’re capable of putting together a more appealing deal for Warner Bros’ shareholders. They feel their offering has more long-term value and also that they have a better shot of getting regulatory approval from the US Government, since politicians have expressed some concerns about whether Netflix and Warner Bros merging is unhealthy for consumers.

I think Netflix was hoping Paramount would quietly walk away from the table at some point, but since that hasn’t happened, they’ve obviously decided letting them talk for a limited period of time to finally end all the public flirting is the right path forward. It’s pretty obvious from the tone of their public statement that they’re less than thrilled about the whole thing though. Be on the lookout for the sass in this portion of the official statement in particular…

Ultimately, as a fan of the entertainment industry who cares deeply about a wide variety of diverse movies getting made, it’s hard to know who to root for here. Netflix has vowed to respect the theatrical window of Warner Bros films if they own the company, but the movie theater industry is so worried they put out an editorial demanding answers. Plenty of creatives have also spoken up. Paramount meanwhile has a longer track record with playing ball, but there’s something even scarier about two of the handful of movie studios we have left combining and further consolidating the industry.

I don’t imagine we’ll hear a ton from anyone involved until the negotiating window is over, but I do imagine, regardless of what happens, we’ll get some more snarky statements and business speak middle fingers. Here’s another one of my favorites that Netflix dropped today…

That’s a really fancy way of saying Paramount hasn’t lived up to recent financial projections, and even if they want to buy Warner Bros, we should all be worried if they even have the money to do so. In Wall Street circles, that’s a pretty aggressive right hand. It’ll be fun to see how Paramount punches back.

You’ve seen the Wuthering Heights method dressing and the fauxmance between Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi, and now, just in time for Valentine’s Day, you’ll finally get to see the actual movie. However, anyone familiar with the epic story of Catherine and Heathcliff knows this isn’t your typical romance, and the big question now is what are critics saying about the book-to-screen adaptation?

With more than a dozen versions of the Emily Brontë novel having been made around the world, Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights may be the most graphic, with first reactions calling it “aggressively provocative,” and Margot Robbie herself describing a screening for her friends as “the most unhinged experience of my life.” David Fear of Rolling Stone has a similar assessment, calling it possibly the “horniest literary adaptation ever made,” writing:

Kate Erbland of IndieWire gives it a B, saying Wuthering Heights is likely to simultaneously enrage literary fans while sparking a new legion of devotees. However, the critic wishes Emerald Fennell would have been bold enough to “be more pervy,” saying If you’re going to go there, go there. If love is going to ruin these two, let’s ruin them.” Erbland continues:

David Rooney of THR warns this “is not your Penguin Classics school curriculum edition” of Wuthering Heights but rather an “unabashedly horny adaptation.” The above critic may have been left wanting in terms of “pervy,” but Rooney thinks there’s definitely enough to earn that R-rating. The critic says:

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle says in Emerald Fennell’s attempt to sex up Wuthering Heights, she makes so many bad decisions that it becomes unclear why she made an adaptation of this novel rather than any other generic romance. Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi do what they can, LaSalle says, but they’re in constant competition with a soundtrack that insists we’re feeling emotions that aren’t there. The critic continues:

Lindsey Bahr of the AP rates it 2 out of 4 stars, saying Wuthering Heights is an exploration of class, race, desire, revenge, trauma and more, which is why it has been adapted so many times. This version, however, “is an undernourishing feast, neither dangerous nor hot enough.” More from Bahr:

The critics don’t agree on whether you’ll love or hate Emerald Fennell’s version of Emily Brontë’s classic, but it seems likely you’ll have strong feelings either way. Wuthering Heights stands with a Tomatometer score of 66% on Rotten Tomatoes, further showing that there’s not a general consensus on Jacob Elordi and Margot Robbie’s latest project.

If you’ve been looking forward to this movie or want to ramp up the heat over Valentine’s Day weekend, you can give this flick a shot starting Friday, February 13.

While it seems clear that Paramount isn’t done fighting to make a deal to buy Warner Bros., all signs point toward Netflix taking control of the century-old movie studio. There are a lot of reasons to be wary of the future for WB, and Ryan Coogler is one of the people who has now admitted the situation is far from perfect.

Coogler directed last year’s Sinners for Warner Bros., a movie that achieved the rare level of success that sees both box office bank and Oscar nominations. It was also a unique film in the way that Coogler secured the rights to the project with the studio. Perhaps Coogler was thinking about that when he told THR that the Netflix purchase of Warner Bros was, being polite with his language, to be sure, “not ideal.” Coogler said…

While Coogler was asked specifically about Netflix buying Warner Bros., his statement would likely ring just as true if Paramount actually succeeds in its hostile takeover bid. Either way, the number of big studios making movies will be reduced by one, meaning fewer projects, fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for everybody involved in the entertainment industry.

Ryan Coogler’s comments echo many others within Hollywood who have spoken about Warner Bros. future. There really is no “good option” in the eyes of many, as either option removes Warner Bros. as an independent studio in much the same way Disney’s acquisition of Fox did in 2019.

One major difference between the two may include how Warner Bros. movies are handled theatrically. While Netflix has continued to reassure investors, as well as movie fans, that it has no plans to reduce the number of WB movies going to theaters, Netflix business model has always been streaming first. So not everybody is certain that Netflix’s announced plans won’t eventually change.

If there's an upside to any of this, it may be that between Paramount's continued efforts to acquire Warner Bros., and the simple fact that a purchase of this size will take a long time, any changes won't be happening too quickly. In the interim, anything could happen, and if current trends have shown us anything, it's that the entertainment industry landscape is changing quickly.

The industry-shaking deal between Netflix and Warner Bros hasn’t been approved yet, but both parties are putting in the groundwork to make it more likely. Executives from the two companies appeared this week in front of Congress to answer questions from Senators. Members of both parties seemed skeptical of how a deal would benefit either the artistic community or consumers. Not surprisingly, the movie theater industry feels the same way.

In response to the proceedings and the testimony of Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos, Michael O’Leary wrote an op-ed for Variety, in which he demanded answers from Netflix about the long-term strategy if it successfully purchases Warner Bros. O’Leary’s words carry a ton of weight because he’s the President and CEO of Cinema United.

For those of you outside the industry, that’s the trade organization that represents exhibitors. The CEOs of AMC, Regal, Cinemark and many of the mid-sized theater chains all sit on the Board Of Directors he represents. So, if he’s speaking in an official capacity, he’s almost certainly speaking with the approval of all the biggest exhibitors. He wants answers, which means they want answers.

During his testimony, Sarandos reiterated his promise that Warner Bros will continue releasing movies into theaters and went further by saying it will honor a forty-five day exclusivity window where the films are kept off any streaming services. That was no doubt reassuring to many in the industry, given how critical Netflix has been about the window and even theatrical releases in general, but according to O’Leary, Sarandos needs to go further with his words.

He says the industry wants to know how many films Netflix plans to release into theaters under the Warner Bros label each year and whether the theatrical window will end with a period where consumers can buy or rent the movie or whether the films will immediately go to streaming services. He also wants to know if Netflix is planning to put marketing budgets behind the movies. Here’s a small portion of his much longer editorial…

The truth is none of us know what the future is going to look like in an entertainment space that’s further consolidated. Netflix’s case to government regulators is that its biggest competitor is YouTube, not the other streaming services. Sarandos and other executives are being clear that they’re planning to continue operating Warner Bros as a traditional movie studio that partners with the exhibitors. That’s why they’re being so loud about committing to a theatrical window.

Those words have not done enough to reassure the theater industry though, as this editorial makes clear. They still have questions, and O'Leary was specific they're less about Netflix and more about what it means for any company to buy one of the major studios.

Many politicians have already weighed in on Netflix’s prospective purchase of Warner Bros, and it’s likely many more will have their say in the coming weeks. There’s clearly a lot of skepticism coming from both inside and outside the industry, but whether that actually makes a difference for the chances this deal goes through is unclear. In the meantime, it’ll be interesting to see whether Netflix makes any further promises to appease the theater chains and other power players in Hollywood also concerned or whether they’ve budged as far as they’re going to budge.

For months now, Superman has existed in a strange space where success and scrutiny coexist. Warner Bros. and DC Studios have repeatedly framed the film as a win: it had a decent box office haul, was critically well-received, and felt like a solid foundation for Chapter One of the new DCU under James Gunn. But recent comments from Netflix leadership suggest the story behind the movie’s early digital release may be more complicated than the official messaging implied.

The conversation reignited after entertainment analyst SyL shared a video on X of remarks from Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos during a U.S. Senate hearing regarding Netflix's attempt to buy out Warner Bros.. Sarandos contrasted Superman with another recent release, Sinners, while explaining how modern-day theatrical windows can be adjusted on the fly based on box office performance. His explanation was blunt:

That framing is sure to raise some eyebrows, because it clashes with how Superman has been publicly discussed. By most traditional metrics, the film didn’t bomb. It earned roughly $617 million worldwide on a reported production budget of over $200 million. Previous reports suggest that the movie generated around $125 million in profit for Warner Bros., which the studio has pointed to as proof of success.

But Sarandos’ comment suggests a different internal benchmark. In modern studio terms, profitability alone isn’t always enough, especially for a film positioned as a franchise cornerstone. Superman was widely expected to push closer to the billion-dollar mark, not just because of the character’s legacy, but because it was meant to signal a confident start of an era for new DC movies headed to the big screen.

That expectation gap matters. A shorter exclusive run can indicate a studio is trying to maximize a film’s total lifecycle value rather than betting on long-term theatrical legs. Sarandos’s remarks imply Gunn’s new superhero movie fell into that category, even if it performed well domestically.

This is where the tension with Gunn’s messaging becomes clear. To be fair, this isn’t the first time James Gunn has addressed why Superman arrived on digital sooner than expected. In a previous interview with Screen Rant, the DC Studios co-CEO offered a more logistical explanation that had less to do with box office legs and more to do with timing inside the larger DCU rollout. Speaking about the decision, Gunn tied the early digital release directly to Peacemaker Season 2 and accessibility concerns:

The Co-CEO of DC Studios' explanation for the early digital release reframes the move as less reactive to performance and more as a connective tissue decision, ensuring audiences could fully engage with the DCU before the next chapter arrived on streaming.

The Netflix CEO’s comments are fueling broader speculation about what Superman’s performance means for the DCU moving forward. A sequel, the upcoming Man of Tomorrow, has already been confirmed, and its villain cast has been announced, with Gunn teasing a storyline that forces the Man of Steel and Lex Luthor into an uneasy alliance. Warner Bros. has also publicly backed Gunn and co-CEO Peter Safran by extending their contracts, signaling stability at the top.

In other words, James Gunn’s DC Universe isn’t “in trouble”—not yet. However, this reframing of Superman’s digital release highlights how success is being defined behind closed doors. This development is likely to create significant pressure on the planned slate of 2026 movie releases and beyond, especially if the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger goes through.

We will keep you up to date on the merger as it awaits regulatory approval. Until then, Gunn’s Superman is available to stream with your HBO Max subscription. As for the next DC film headed to theaters, that's Supergirl, which flies into cinemas on June 26.

The last year has delivered some big upheavals in the film studio front. In 2025, Skydance formalized its acquisition of Paramount, and then Warner Bros. went up for sale shortly thereafter. As things currently stand, it’s looking like the studio that’s home to properties like Looney Tunes, DC and Harry Potter will be absorbed into Netflix, although Paramount hasn’t ended its efforts to take control of WB. But even assuming the Netflix deal goes through, director Christopher Nolan has voiced his concerns about how the studio being absorbed into the streamer is a “huge blow.”

In addition to delivering The Odyssey to the 2026 movies schedule this summer, Nolan is also the new president of the Directors Guild of America, which boasts 20,000 members. In addition to the union dealing with job losses and the rise of artificial intelligence, there’s fear that if Warner Bros. and Netflix merge, that could negatively impact the theatrical industry. The filmmaker said at a DGA roundtable (via Variety):

It’s no secret that Netflix and theaters don’t exactly go hand in hand. The streaming giant will often release some of its movies in limited runs on the big screen so they can qualify for awards consideration, and every now and then something like Glass Onion or KPop Demon Hunters will get to spend a little extra time in that setting. That said, the overwhelming majority of people use their Netflix subscription to stream the company’s original movies, leading to fear that Warner Bros.-produced movies would either spend less time in theaters or become streaming exclusives.

Last December, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos seemed to indicate that Warner Bros. movies would remain theatrical releases, specifically maintaining a 45-day exclusivity window. The DGA, while not taking a side between Netflix or Paramount, has pushed for that window to be expanded to 60 days, with Christoper Nolan adding:

Christopher Nolan used to have a close relationship with Warner Bros., with all his movies from Insomnia to Tenet being distributed by the studio. However, that relationship fractured when Nolan took issue with WB releasing all of its movies in 2021, when the COVID-19 pandemic was still going in, simultaneously in theaters and to those with an HBO Max subscription. He subsequently struck a new deal with Universal Pictures, which distributed Oppenheimer and will do the same for The Odyssey.

But Christopher Nolan is a filmmaker who values the theatrical experience first and foremost, so it’s hardly surprising he’s concerned about what this change in ownership for Warner Bros. means. It’s not like he wants the studio to fail just because the partnership fell apart. However, that’s just one of the many issues he and the DGA will be dealing with for the foreseeable future. While we wait to see how things pan out on the Warner Bros./Netflix front, remember that The Odyssey comes out on July 17.

Just last week, Ryan Coogler’s Sinners became not only the most decorated movie among 2026 Oscar nominees, but the most nominated movie of all time. It sweetens a landmark deal that the writer/director made prior to filming the vampire flick, which gives him complete ownership of Sinners in 25 years. A lot of Hollywood has been talking about Coogler’s deal lately, including Ben Affleck, who got honest about his thoughts on the move.

Along with being a big star in Hollywood, Ben Affleck is an accomplished writer, director and producer too, having been behind the scenes on movies like Good Will Hunting, The Town, Argo and more. Here’s what he had to say about Coogler’s Sinners deal:

Affleck definitely isn’t the first big name to applaud Coogler for his deal with Warner Bros, which was made in 2024, prior to the movie starting production. Spike Lee also called it a “smart move,” citing that the only movie he owns from his filmography is She’s Gotta Have It.

Tyler Perry has also said that he actually called Coogler following Black Panther and walked him through how to make the kind of deal he eventually made with Sinners.

Speaking a bit more about this deal, Affleck continued:

Coogler will be in his sixties once Sinners gets handed over to him, which could make for a nice retirement for the visionary filmmaker, depending on the value of the movie by that time. Affleck, who has been in the movie business for 45 years, certainly thinks he made a solid deal that could make him quite a bit of money down the line while on the All The Smoke podcast. He also said this:

Time will certainly tell, but as one veteran entertainment and technology attorney, Jonathan Handel, commented before on the deal, Coogler is “rolling the dice” regarding the deal. As far as things have gone so far between its commercial appeal and critical praise, the filmmaker's bet on himself certainly seems like it will be worthwhile.

Perhaps the next question regarding this conversation is whether more big filmmakers with original ideas will try to walk in his footsteps and succeed, or not. Currently, Coogler’s deal is a rather rare one in Hollywood, but it could really shake the industry up.

When it was announced that Warner Bros. had accepted Netflix’s bid and would be buying the century old studio, we though that question had been answered, and the bidding war for WB was over. However, that’s proven to be anything but the case, as Paramount has not given up on the possibility of winning the studio. First it launched a hostile takeover bid, and now its filed a lawsuit.

According to Variey, this morning Paramount Skydance filed a lawsuit in Delaware court asking that Warner Bros. make public financial details of its decision to accept an $83 billion deal with Netflix. This comes after the board of Warner Bros. rejected Paramount’s $30 per share offer for the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount Wants Warner Bros. To Disclose Why It Chose Netflix

Paramount has made eight bids for Warner Bros. over the last few months, and each one has been rejected. The Paramount offer does provide more money per share than the Netflix deal would, but WB has claimed that Paramount’s offer includes more risk, which makes the Netflix deal preferable even though it ultimately means less money.

The lawsuit essentially argues that WB should make its decision-making process public so that WB shareholders have the full picture, seemingly believing, or at least hoping, that if that were the case, shareholders might ultimately want the Paramount deal instead.

It was something of a shock when it was announced that Netflix had one the bidding war for Warner Bros. Everybody in the industry immediately began to wonder what that meant for the future of theatrical exhibition of Warner Bros. films. Netflix has been quite public about its desire to see theatrical windows shrink, though it has insisted that, at least in the short term, WB movies will stay in theaters.

The Battle For Warner Bros. Appears Far From Over

While a Netflix deal would put one of America’s most storied film studios under the control of a streaming platform, a Paramount deal would further consolidate major studios together. We lost one independent studio when Disney bought Fox, and seeing Paramount and Warner Bros. coming together would continue to shrink the number of competing studios and likely shrink the number of theatrically released movies.

Many in the film industry don't like the Netflix deal, but there are upsides and downsides to either way Warner Bros. could go. While Netflix and Warner Bros. are calling it a done deal, Paramount clearly doesn’t think that’s the case. Whatever way this lawsuit goes, its existence is evidence that Paramount is going to continue to fight this battle for as long as possible. Considering that it could be years before a merger is finalized, this could all be going on for a very long time to come.

There’s something special about a good medical drama — there’s intensity, high stakes and often enough blood that even horror fans can get on board. The Pitt has all of the above, and the series’ first season (streaming with an HBO Max subscription) has been raking in awards for Noah Wyle and his co-stars. Now, with The Pitt Season 2 hitting the 2026 TV schedule, critics have seen 9 of the 15 episodes and are weighing in on how the drama holds up over another long day.

The Pitt Season 2 will feature a time jump of about 10 months, again following the ER staff in real time through one day’s shift. This time around, it’s Fourth of July in Pittsburgh, so who’s ready to see some firework burns? Let’s get to the reviews. Alison Herman of Variety calls The Pitt’s return “triumphant,” with no need for drastic upgrades following Season 1’s success. Rather, the actors have made subtle changes to reflect the evolution of their characters as the show continues to address real-world social issues. Herman continues:

Nick Schager of The Daily Beast agrees it’s a plus that creator R. Scott Gemmill doesn’t try to one-up himself after Season 1 made The Pitt one of the best shows streaming on HBO Max. Noah Wyle is brilliant, the critic writes, and the show is more confident than ever, not just avoiding a sophomore slump but building on its solid foundation to remain not just the most harrowing medical series on TV, but the most empathetic as well. More from his review:

Angie Han of THR says The Pitt Season 2 is as thrilling and gory as the first and still oddly comforting. In fact, the critic writes that re-entering the doors to the Pittsburgh Trauma Medical Center felt like catching up with an old friend. That’s certainly not something you often hear about shows set in a hospital. In Han’s words:

Chris Evangelista of SlashFilm says The Pitt continues to turn empathy and competency into peak TV, with memorable characters played by talented actors giving great performances. Evangelista gives the nine episodes released for review a 9 out of 10, saying the HBO Max medical drama remains one of the best shows on television. He says:

Ben Travers of IndieWire gives it a B, saying Season 2 introduces an interesting dynamic between Dr. Robby and Dr. Baran Al-Hashim (Sepideh Moafi). Dr. Al is set to replace Noah Wyle’s character in the ER for the length of his impending sabbatical. As he tries to make it through one last shift, she represents the future and inevitable change. Travers writes:

It seems that, by all accounts, The Pitt’s second season continues a lot of what made it one of fans’ favorite new shows of the past year. Check out the trailer for the new season below.

One of the biggest deals in the history of the entertainment industry is about to go down. And yet, the details of exactly how that will happen are anything but clear. While it seems all but certain that Netflix will be acquiring Warner Bros. in the coming months, there is at least the chance that things may not go that way, as Paramount is looking to play spoiler.

Up to this point, everybody is concerned about Warner Bros. studio and the future of streaming. What will happen to theatrical distribution? Will Netflix and HBO Max merge into one platform? These are good questions, worth asking, but let me ask another. What about theme parks?

The Fate Of Warner Bros. Is A Bit Unclear Right Now

Warner Bros. put itself on the auction block earlier this year, leading to it being all but certain that the storied film studio would become the property of another. Paramount seemed like the most likely option, considering the other recently purchased studio was anything but shy about its intent, and yet, when the dust cleared, it was Netflix that apparently had the best offer.

And yet, Paramount has recently launched an attempt at a hostile takeover by offering far more money per share to stockholders than the Netflix deal will provide. While Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos seems unworried, the future is far from clear.

Netflix Taking Over Warner Bros. Will Likely Super Charge The Studio’s Themed Entertainment Plans

As somebody who covers the theme park industry, I always consider how any major change in the entertainment landscape may impact the industry of themed entertainment, and to be blunt, Netflix taking over Warner Bros. has the potential to cause a major shake-up in the industry, even though WB’s theme park presence is minimal.

Netflix is a company that understands the value of themed entertainment. While the world doesn’t have a Netflix theme park (yet), by the time you read this, the company will have opened its second Netflix House complex in as many months, with a third location already planned for Las Vegas.

These are small locations, with a couple of themed spaces based on popular Netflix IPs like Wednesday and Squid Game, and a Netflix Bites restaurant. It makes sense that Netflix would want to start small. There's no reason to invest the time and money into larger themed experiences off the bat.

But if Netflix does indeed buy Warner Bros., then Netflix is going to jump from a smaller player in themed entertainment to a major one, essentially overnight. This is because they will take ownership of one of the biggest theme park IPs in the world, Harry Potter.

Harry Potter has been a key part of Universal’s theme park success over the last several years, with all three of Universal Orlando Resort’s three parks having a Wizarding World of Harry Potter land.

This would be a massive shift for Netflix, which would likely simply increase the speed with which it grows in the themed entertainment space. Whether they build more of their own locations, with a lot more IP available, or work with existing theme park companies, like Universal, or even Disney, we could see Netflix become a major player in this very quickly.

Could A New Warner Bros. License DC To Universal?

Of course, Warner Bros. has another major IP that most would agree has been underutilized in the theme park space, DC Comics. While DC has been working with Six Flags for years, all this has amounted to is using DC Comic characters in the names of attractions like roller coasters. We’ve seen no real DC-focused themed entertainment. A recent report indicated that Warner Bros. has been talking to Universal about just such an endeavor, which on its own would be quite a big shift

The most intriguing element of such a deal is that Universal already has a deal with Marvel, from the pre-Disney days that brought its cast of characters to Universal Islands of Adventure years ago. As such, Disney itself has been limited in what it can do with theme park attractions in Florida. It would be quite the coup if Universal ended up with Marvel and DC attractions in the same resort.

Of course, there’s reason to believe Disney wouldn’t want that sort of competition, and even Universal might not be looking to overdo the comic book characters in its parks. This opens the door to Universal possibly trading Marvel for DC. As such, a licensing deal between Universal and Warner Bros at least has the potential to be a huge boon for Disney, giving them back the rights to make Marvel attractions at Walt Disney World.

Paramount Looks To Be Planning New Endeavors In Themed Entertainment

And of course, there’s still the dark horse in all this. At this point, it’s far from clear just what sort of chance Paramount might have at making its hostile takeover work. Netflix says it’s not worried, but if by some miracle it did happen, this would massively impact the theme park industry in entirely different ways.

Paramount had its own theme park division in the ‘90s that included King’s Island and Great America in California, but it got out of the business in 2007 when it sold its parks to Cedar Fair. However, Paramount is now looking to take another shot at the themed entertainment business. Paramount Global is behind the design of Star City, a new resort area in South Korea that will include the Hwaseong International Theme Park, which will use Paramount IP for attractions. It’s expected to open in 2030.

A Top Gun-themed standalone attraction is also currently in development with plans to open in Las Vegas in 2028. There are also plans to open additional locations, including potentially in the heart of theme park world, Orlando, FL.

The combination of Paramount and Warner Bros. on the experiences side would, just like Netflix, likely accelerate Paramount’s growth in the industry significantly. Paramount has some franchises that would have to be appealing for any theme park looking to add lands or attractions, including Mission: Impossible, the Sonic the Hedgehog movies, and, arguably, the biggest franchise in the world currently without a major theme park presence, Star Trek. Giving Paramount access to Universal through the Harry Potter license could open the door to these other franchises more easily finding a theme park home.

Themed Entertainment Is Becoming A Key Asset for Media Companies

However the Warner Bros. situation finally shakes out, the themed entertainment business should not be overlooked. There’s a reason that Disney and Universal invest so much of their respective companies into theme parks are other experiential offerings, like Disney’s Cruise Line.

These things basically print money, and that’s going to be the case for whoever ends up taking over Warner Bros. Experiences Division. It isn’t just the film franchises that matter. It’s what can be done with them.

Last week, when it was announced that Warner Bros. had accepted the bid from Netflix that will see the two companies become one, a big uncertainty was spurred. It as the question of whether or not Warner Bros. would continue to release films theatrically, and the second question was if they did, how long would it be before those movies hit streaming? Many in Hollywood have opinions and, now, the director of the most recent Best Picture Oscar winner is voicing his.

Sean Baker, director of Anora, is the head of the competition jury at the Red Sea International Film Festival this year, and he has a take on the impending deal. It was during the event (via THR) that Baker argued that filmmakers should demand theatrical releases and longer release windows because they elevate the importance of a film. He said…

While Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos has indicated that Warner Bros. will continue to release films theatrically, he did imply that theatrical exclusivity windows could shorten, arguing that’s what consumers want. Currently, most films are only in theaters for about 45 days before they arrive on VOD services, before being made available on streaming platforms like Netflix.

Filmmakers would certainly have some power if they did collectively “put their foot down.” If people refused to make movies for certain studios without a theatrical release window, then they would likely ultimately get what they’re asking for. Rian Johnson saw limited theatrical distribution for his Knives Out movies with Netflix and others likely could as well. For his part, Baker says he will insist on 100 days of theatrical exclusivity for his next movie, adding…

As the director of a Best Picture winner, Sean Baker will likely have every major studio courting him. Considering that information, there's a firm chance he’ll almost certainly get what he’s asking for. Not every director will have the ability on their own to demand theatrical exclusivity, of course, as that privilege surely depends on professional standing. However, if a lot of the top names do, it could (theoretically) help those filmmakers who want that sort of treatment get it.

Of course, all that assumes that Netflix actually buys Warner Bros. Paramount, which lost out on its WB bid, hasn’t entirely given up the fight, launching a hostile takeover bid of the studio. It’s not entirely clear how the landscape of the movie business will change in the coming years, but change is certainly coming nonetheless.

What do you get the CEO who has everything this holiday season? Well, based on its increasing popularity, the thing everybody wants under the tree this year is Warner Bros. It was the focus of at least three major entertainment companies recently. Paramount, Netflix and also Comcast were engaged in a bidding war over the studio, one that we thought had been settled last week.

Last Friday, it was announced that Netflix’s bid to acquire Warner Bros. had been accepted, which left the other two competitors, Paramount and Comcast, seemingly out in the cold. However, this morning, Paramount revealed it wasn’t done when it launched a hostile takeover bid. However, in an appearance at the UBS Global Media and Communications conference (via Variety), Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos indicated that he doesn’t plan to lose sleep over the continued battle, as he still expects Netflix to win the day. He said…

Certainly nobody is expecting Netflix’s CEO to sound alarm bells only a couple days after the deal was announced. However, if we take him at his word that the move made by Paramount earlier today to attempt to simply purchase over $100 billion in Warner Bros. stock was “entirely expected,” then we can bet Netflix either has a reason to believe it won’t work, or they have a counter in mind if and when it becomes necessary.

Ted Sarandos calls it a “done deal,” though strictly speaking, that isn’t true. There will be a lot of business decisions left to be made, and the deal will require regulatory approval from the U.S. government to be sure there are no antitrust concerns. It's not unlike what Paramount itself needed when it merged with Skydance earlier this year.

There is the possibility that it could be decided that the largest streaming platform in Netflix, taking ownership of one of the other top names, HBO Max, might constitute too much of a monopoly in the streaming space. That said, the same issues would be at hand if Paramount and Warner Bros., two of the largest movie studios, were to be housed under one roof.

Whether or not this is all a done deal or not remains to be seen. Perhaps Paramount is just spinning its wheels in a last-ditch effort to get what it wants. We'll keep you apprised as more updates on this shakeup in the entertainment industry come in.

The Netflix–Warner Bros. merger has brought fresh attention to the future of DC Studios, a future shaped in large part by co-execs Peter Safran and James Gunn. Fans have already seen the pair lay out an ambitious plan that includes the upcoming Supergirl movie, the standalone Clayface, and a Superman sequel titled Man of Tomorrow. Yet a new report shines a light not just on the massive Netflix acquisition but also on how Gunn ended up running DC in the first place.

Per a new Bloomberg report, the $82.7 billion deal offers a look behind the curtain, including the moment Gunn’s Superman script apparently shifted everything for WB's leadership. Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav had been weighing how to reshape DC’s creative leadership when the Slither filmmaker's take on Superman crossed his desk. The script made a strong enough impression that Gunn and Safran were tapped soon after to run DC Studios together. As Zaslav told the publication:

The report adds that Gunn’s experience with Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy franchise played a role. At the same time, Safran’s track record with Aquaman — still DC’s highest-grossing film worldwide — solidified the pair as the top choice. Both executives made enough of an impression that their contracts now extend through spring 2027.

The timing is notable, considering Netflix will soon own DC’s film and streaming operations outright. As part of the merger, the streamer will acquire the entire comic book company's character library, which analysts view as the deal's true prize. A person could speculate that the streamer may see DC as an opportunity to build a franchise ecosystem that extends well beyond theaters and streaming.

For now, though, Safran and Gunn say they’re focusing on scripts and long-term planning rather than the corporate chess game. Safran credits Gunn with shaping DC’s overall roadmap, calling that vision the key to their partnership. As he put it:

Gunn sums up the mission even more directly. In his words:

All of that makes it hard to imagine Netflix letting Gunn or Safran slip away. For the first time in years, the DCU feels like it has momentum, with Superman (2025) landing as a genuine hit, Peacemaker returning strong in its second season and Supergirl and Clayface gearing up for their 2026 movie schedule releases.

The two of them have built something that cuts through the usual superhero movie fatigue by leaning into tone, variety, and character in a way Marvel hasn’t lately. If Netflix wants DC to thrive — and to stand out in a crowded, cooling genre — keeping Gunn and Safran in charge isn’t just smart, but likely essential.

Last week, the entertainment world was rocked to the core when it was announced that the bidding war for Warner Bros. was over, and Netflix had come out on top. Considering how much everybody knew that Paramount was interested in acquiring Warner Bros., the fact that it lost out was an obvious blow to the newly merged company. However, it turns out the Paramount CEO isn’t going down without a fight.

Paramount Is Attempting A Hostile Takeover Of Warner Bros.

This morning, Paramount announced (via Deadline) it would be attempting to acquire all outstanding shares of Warner Bros. at $30 per share, a price that equates to a Warner Bros. purchase price of $108.4 billion, a significant increase over the $82.7 billion price that WB previously accepted from Netflix. The Paramount offer is for the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery, including the linear networks. Netflix’s offer is only for the studio portion, with Warner Bros. already in the process of spinning off the networks into a separate company.

In its statement, Paramount claims Warner Bros. never engaged meaningfully with the numerous offers it made, and that by making this all-cash offer, WB shareholders will have the opportunity to make the decision themselves. It also claims that the Netflix deal will ultimately result in higher prices for consumers and a greater risk for shareholders, due to the fact that Netflix has never engaged in major acquisitions before.

Paramount, on the other hand, only recently completed a merger with Skydance. It certainly shows the company's ability to handle such things, though it would certainly put a lot on the new company's plate to acquire two major studios in just a matter of months.

Could Paramount’s Argument Sway Shareholders?

It will certainly be interesting to see how things play out. Generally speaking, shareholders are simply looking for the greatest return on their investment. And if Paramount is offering more money, shareholders who are going to get paid for their shares one way or another may simply take the higher price. If Paramount is able to acquire enough stock, it can simply take over the company this way, and even if it doesn’t, it might be able to acquire enough to cause problems for the Netflix deal.

One of the biggest concerns about Netflix taking over Warner Bros. surrounded how the new company would handle theatrical distribution, something still seen as important to the wider filmmaking industry but something that has never been a primary concern of the streaming-first Netflix. Paramount argues that it is the better steward of Warner Bros. because it will embrace theaters and theatrical release windows.

While we thought the battle for Warner Bros. ended last week, clearly the fight is only just beginning. With things now unclear, we could also see Comcast reenter the fight, which also expressed interest in acquiring Warner Bros. Whichever way this goes, the winner still has to deal with regulatory approval. Warner Bros. shareholders will have until January 8, 2026, at 5 PM ET, to tender their shares for cash.

Warner Bros., the film studio that’s older than television and probably your grandmother, has been the gift that everybody was trying to get their hands on this holiday season. Paramount wanted it. Comcast wanted it. However, Netflix will be the company that, pending regulatory approval, walks away with the hottest property in the auction house, for a cool $83 billion.

One of the biggest questions hanging over a potential Netflix purchase was whether the streaming-first studio was going to keep releasing Warner Bros. movies in theaters, considering Netflix itself really tries to avoid doing that. In the announcement, via THR, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos seemed to indicate that WB movies would still be theatrical releases, saying…

So… Netflix expects to maintain Warner Bros. movies in theaters, which indicates that, for now, that’s the plan. Of course, if something unexpected were to happen, it sounds like Netflix is at least open to changing that plan. In a later conference call, Sarandos said that we could “count on” everything currently planned for theatrical release from Warner Bros. to go that way. So don’t expect an upcoming DC movie like Man of Tomorrow or an already filmed tentpole like Dune: Part Three to become a streaming release.

Of course, once the current schedule of theatrical releases is worked through, it’s far from certain that Warner Bros. will continue to release the same number of films that it has in recent years. We could still see a drastic reduction in which movies get full theatrical releases. Warner Bros., a studio that has stood far longer than any of the technology that made Netflix successful, may change a lot in the years to come because of this deal.

The fact that this comes after Warner Bros. has been particularly strong theatrically can't be overlooked. It wasn't that long ago that Barbie became the highest-grossing WB movie ever. This year, WB had major hits with The Minecraft Movie and Superman, but has also been remarkably consistent, setting a record with the number of films that have seen $40 million openings, including Sinners and Weapons. Plus, the release of One Battle After Another was very successful, too.

One thing that we can likely expect to change is that while those movies may still be released in theaters, they will end up on streaming sooner. On the same call, Sarandos said that he thought “windows will evolve to be much more consumer friendly,” which could mean shorter periods between theatrical releases and streaming debuts.

Clearly, there are a lot of questions still left to answer, and since a deal this big won’t close overnight, it will likely be quite a while before we really know how this is going to work. The one thing we know for sure is that the industry has changed in a big way today, and it will never be the same again.

Over the last few years, we have seen several massive Hollywood mergers, from Disney buying Fox to Discovery buying Warner Bros to, most recently, Skydance buying Paramount. Now it looks like we may be in line for another, as recent indications are that Warner Bros could very likely be sold again in the near future, with the only question being to whom?

There are a lot of reasons that mergers like this are potentially bad news, including reduced competition and almost certainly a reduction in the total number of movies being made on a regular basis. A lot of people are worried about the fate of Warner Bros. Larry Gordon, a producer on the recent Predator: Badlands, as well as many classics like Field of Dreams. is one who is truly lamenting the future. He recently told the New York Times…

For so many people who grew up in the cinema, the WB logo means something. Gordon is clearly one of those people, and he's far from the only one.

There are still a lot of questions regarding the future of Warner Bros., but recent reports indicate that Paramount Skydance, the newly merged company under David Ellison, recently made an offer for the 102-year-old studio. While that offer was apparently declined, the expectation is that another offer will be forthcoming. It’s also been reported that Comcast, the parent company of Universal Pictures, is also considering making an offer for WB.

Even more so than when Disney bought Fox, another studio snatching up and consolidating Warner Bros. would mean the end of an era for Hollywood. Warner Bros. is a studio behind some of the most iconic movies in the history of the medium, from Casablanca to Bonnie and Clyde to My Fair Lady to films that will likely become classics in their own right, like the Harry Potter and Dune movies. As another Hollywood insider, Dan Jinks, the producer of American Beauty, puts it…

At this point, it seems all but certain that Warner Bros. will be sold, and it’s unlikely the future buyer will be somebody looking to keep the studio as an independent entity. Only other studios are likely to be interested in making such a massive purchase. It’s possible, even likely, that Warner Bros. will continue to exist as a studio, just as Fox still does under Disney, but it still won’t be the same. The end of an era is almost certainly on the way.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another won the weekend box office in its September 26th premiere at $22 million domestically, which was a personal best for the director. However, it experienced a 50% drop when Taylor Swift: The Official Release Party of a Showgirl ruled the weekend box office, just like she did when The Eras Tour broke through in 2023. After claims went down that the Leonardo DiCaprio-led movie could allegedly lose the studio $100 million, Warner Bros. defended itself and made sure to mention A Minecraft Movie and Sinners.

While One Battle After Another is at $141.9 million so far, Variety states that the action-thriller needs $300 million to break even. This is because Warner Bros. spent more than $130 million on production and $70 million on marketing. With studios and movie theaters getting a 50-50 cut in box office revenue, Leonardo DiCaprio would get a percentage of the box office before studios get back anything.

Due to the Paul Thomas Anderson movie launching its multimillion-dollar Oscar campaign, Variety reports that Warner Bros. executives claimed that the studio is allegedly tracking to lose $100 million. A Warner Bros. spokesperson wasn’t having it, explaining that the studio is actually doing better than ever for 2025 movie releases:

The $4 billion refers to box office revenue and not profits, but the spokesperson made sure to mention that movies like A Minecraft Movie and Sinners were studio successes. Jared Hess’ video game adaptation was just what the box office needed after this year’s slow start, earning $957.8 million and becoming the third-highest-grossing film of the year. Ryan Coogler’s horror flick had two great box office weekends and ultimately scored $367 million. These two movies were certainly raking in the box office dough for Warner Bros.

You definitely can’t say that Warner Bros. is suffering. In fact, the studio achieved a box office milestone because of original movies like Sinners and F1. They had six consecutive films open with a box office of at least $40 million. Especially considering Sinners, F1, and Weapons were not in the franchise, superhero realm, it’s amazing that they managed to draw large audiences with their original content. It proves that you don’t always have to be a remake, sequel or spinoff to be a safe bet for studios.

One Battle After Another may have a box office battle on its hands due to its underwhelming commercial performance. However, a Warner Bros. exec cleared the air that the studio is not struggling due to how well the opening weekends of A Minecraft Movie and Sinners reached. Hopefully, with the Leonardo DiCaprio movie’s critical acclaim and potential awards buzz, the thriller flick can luck out when it hits streaming.

Make sure to give One Battle After Another a chance, playing in theaters now.

For a guy who has repeatedly claimed he’s retired from making movies, Jim Carrey seems to be working a lot. He came “out of retirement" to film Sonic the Hedgehog 3, a movie that had him playing two roles, and before we even make it to the already confirmed Sonic the Hedgehog 4, the comedian is looking to join a new franchise that's truly out there.

Jim Carrey Is Circling The Jetsons (In A Flying Car, I Suppose)

In a new report from The Wrap, Jim Carrey is reportedly in talks to lead a live-action cast as family patriarch George Jetson for a movie based on the Hanna-Barbera cartoon of the same name about a futuristic family living in the space age. I cannot wait to see what his hair looks like if this happens.

Jurassic World director Colin Trevorrow is in talks to direct the film and is also in talks to write alongside Joe Epstein. No other casting is being reported at this time, but one assumes the full Jetsons family, including wife Jane, daughter Judy, and son Elroy, will also be along for the ride, alongside other characters from the cartoon like the family robot-maid Rosie and George’s boss Mr. Spacely.

The Jetsons was a futuristic counterpart to Hanna-Barbera’s Stone Age cartoon, The Flintstones. Both series were essentially sitcoms focused on traditional topics of work and family, with the twist being the setting for each, which put mundane modern middle-class life in wildly different time periods.

There have been previous attempts to adapt The Jetsons for a live-action movie, as well as a live-action Jetsons TV series, but those have all fallen apart before the movie could be made. With these major names attached, that could be enough to make this time different.

George Jetson Could Be A Good Fit For Jim Carrey

While Jim Carrey, currently at 63 years old, is a bit older than George Jetson is traditionally portrayed, it’s not hard to see that he would be a good fit for the role of George Jetson. Carrey‘s persona on screen has never been far from that of a cartoon character. He’s already played wild characters like The Mask and The Grinch, and is currently riding high on his performance as Dr. Robotnik in the Sonic the Hedgehog movies.

With The Jetsons seemingly so early in development that it doesn’t yet have a script, one could potentially be tailored to Jim Carrey if he signs on. Because the project is so early in development, it’s unlikely the film will run into any conflicts with Sonic the Hedgehog 4, which currently has a 2027 release date. Carrey has not been officially announced for that project yet, but he is expected to return, especially considering his performance(s) in the previous Sonic movie were widely seen as the highlight of that film.

You could make a case that no streaming service company has been speculated about and analyzed more over the last several years than Warner Bros Discovery. The company has famously gone through mergers, name changes and an endless stream of rumors about its own future, and yet, the long-term picture still isn’t clear. Lately, it’s seemed like CEO David Zaslav was going to sell the company to the recently merged Paramount Skydance, but it turns out that’s not the only option on the table.

Let’s back up real quick. Paramount Skydance and its owners The Ellison Family have been flirting with buying Warner Bros Discovery for awhile now. They recently offered $20 a share to buy the business, but according to Bloomberg, Zaslav and company officially decided to pass over the weekend. The initial speculation on Wall Street was that Paramount would come back with a higher offer and/ or put their petition directly to the shareholders, but The Hollywood Reporter is claiming there is another option very much in play.

There’s reportedly some momentum within Warner Bros Discovery to split the company in two. HBO and the Warner Bros studio itself would reportedly stay with Zaslav, and a second company that features all the cable channels would reportedly be created and run separately. This would allow each of the two new businesses to focus on more organized and direct goals, and it would also allow potential buyers for either business to focus more specifically on the part they want.

That’s right. In theory, even if the company splits, there’s a chance Paramount could still buy the HBO and Warner Bros Studio part of it, but the hope is they would have more competition if they tried to do so. There’s apparently a viewpoint within Warner Bros Discovery that if it was just those two parts, a lot more streaming services and tech companies would come into play as potential bidders like Netflix and Apple. They haven’t said that publicly, of course, but it’s reasonable to think they might at least want a bit more information. If one of them got interested, that could create a bidding war with Paramount.

HBO and the Warner Bros Studio collectively boast some of the most valuable IP assets in all of Hollywood within their portfolios. Together, they own the media rights to properties like Harry Potter, DC Superheroes and Game Of Thrones, among thousands of others. Every major player in Hollywood would no doubt love to acquire them, but as with everything else in business, it ultimately comes down to price and whether there’s the potential for a return on the investment.

The uncertainty comes at a time when consumers are growing frustrated with their entertainment options. The major streaming services have steadily raised prices over the past few years, and subscriptions to just the major ones can now collectively cost more than cable. Throw in frustration over a perceived lack of quality for many direct to streaming movies, and there’s a growing sense that consumers want change. Whether or not that would be improved through increased consolidation between the major studios is unclear.

Expect to hear a lot more about the future of Warner Bros Discovery in the coming weeks and months, whether the long-rumored merger with Paramount Skydance happens or not.

The DCU's next big, exciting upcoming superhero movie may have quietly taken off sooner than anyone realized. According to a recent report, DC’s Supergirl recently held a secret screening on the Warner Bros. lot in Burbank. An inside source has since dropped claims about who was in attendance at the private showing for the 2026 movie schedule release. By the sound of it, this was not your typical Hollywood event, but something far more controlled.

Apparently, this Supergirl screening wasn’t a fan test or press preview. Per The Hollywood Reporter, it was a closed-door screening attended only by a small group of studio executives and a few trusted members of James Gunn’s DC brain trust. The goal, more than likely, was to gauge how the film fits into Chapter 1: Gods and Monsters as it moves deeper into post-production. And the level of secrecy only makes the screening more intriguing, especially given its early placement in the production timeline.

The fact that Gunn and company felt confident enough to show the movie nearly a year before release is a strong sign that Supergirl is further along than fans expected, and that’s exciting news for DC watchers. With the “Summer of Superman” now wrapped and Peacemaker Season 2 nearing its finale, following the wrap-up of its Earth-X storyline, fans won’t see another DCU project until Supergirl officially soars into theaters next year. Naturally, my curiosity has shifted toward what kind of story Gunn and his team are bringing to life for the Girl of Steel.

The film, starring House of the Dragon’s Milly Alcock as Kara Zor-El, who had a bit of a controversial introduction/cameo at the end of Superman, is inspired by Tom King’s 2021 comic run Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow. James Gunn has repeatedly praised that comic book story as one of the most emotionally rich and visually distinct in recent DC canon. The creative direction stems directly from the film’s source material, which offers a far more layered take on the character.

The adaptation promises to explore Kara’s trauma and resilience in a way that sets her apart from her famous cousin. The film’s writer, Ana Nogueira, recently shared that the hardest aspect to capture was Kara’s pain from witnessing Krypton’s destruction firsthand. She described King’s interpretation as “rougher” and “edgier” while maintaining some comedy. Nogueira credited it for shaping her vision of the heroine. As she put it: “When I read it, I was like, ‘There she is.’” It’s a deeply human story, one that challenges how audiences have traditionally seen Kara Zor-El on screen.

This upcoming superhero film presents a bold new take on Kara, one that diverges significantly from previous on-screen versions. Gone is the bright-eyed optimist of the Greg Berlanti-produced Arrowverse—or the campy 1980s version. This Supergirl is tougher, more independent, and shaped by hardship rather than mentorship. It’s a grittier portrayal that sounds like the perfect thematic counterbalance to David Corenswet’s Supes, whose solo film debuted this past summer and served as a strong launchpad for the new DCU.

Honestly, this early screening, I feel, bodes well for the DCU’s next chapter. If Superman was the bright dawn of this new era, Supergirl appears to be the moment it finds its emotional depth. Between Milly Alcock’s rising-star energy and Gunn’s guiding hand, the Girl of Steel might just steal the spotlight next year.

While Supergirl won’t soar into theaters for nearly a year, this quiet Burbank screening feels like the start of her big debut. I, for one, can’t wait to see Kara’s origin story unfold on the big screen. In the meantime, I’ll be revisiting Superman with my HBO Max subscription.

Paul Thomas Anderson is a celebrated filmmaker with double-digit Academy Award nominations for movies like There Will Be Blood and Licorice Pizza. Whether you’re just getting into Anderson’s collection or have seen all of his best movies, there’s a new project hitting the 2025 movie calendar. One Battle After Another is an epic action thriller with an impressive cast, and critics are here to share their thoughts ahead of its September 26 release.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars in One Battle After Another as an ex-revolutionary who must reunite with his former colleagues to rescue his daughter from a corrupt military official (Sean Penn). The film also stars Benicio del Toro, Regina Hall, Teyana Taylor and more. Steven Spielberg gave his stamp of approval, but what about the other critics? IndieWire’s David Ehrlich gives it an A, writing:

Adam Nayman of The Ringer says One Battle After Another is the director at his best, agreeing with Leonardo DiCaprio and Benicio Del Toro that this should win Paul Thomas Anderson his first Academy Award. Nayman writes:

Richard Lawson of THR calls the film “bracingly timely,” as the story boldly addresses the political “nightmare” we face today and speaks directly to the audience about how we must help each other. The critic says:

Owen Gleiberman of Variety knows the descriptions of One Battle After Another sound aggressively dystopian — like an over-the-top satirical warning of where the world is today and where it might be heading. However, he continues:

Brian Tallerico of RogerEbert.com points out that while Vineland by Thomas Pynchon was set in the 1980s, PTA’s loosely interpreted book-to-screen adaptation will read as 2020s political commentary because of the story’s timelessness. Tallerico rates the film a perfect 4 out of 4 stars and says:

Critics across the board agree with the above reviews, with One Battle After Another being declared Certified Fresh with a 98% Rotten Tomatoes score from more than 160 submissions. If you want to see the latest project from Paul Thomas Anderson and decide for yourself if you think it’s award-worthy, you can do so starting Friday, September 26.