Remember when Crazy Rich Asians became one of Hollywood's book-to-screen adaptations? It turned into a phenomenon in the summer of 2018 when the romantic comedy featuring an all-Asian cast became the highest-grossing movie in the genre in the 2010s. For years, we've been waiting to hear about the sequel, and we finally, officially have a follow-up set to start production in 2027. It's unexpected, but I'm so happy it's happening.

How The Crazy Rich Asians Followup Is Finally Happening

Warner Bros. Television just put out a press release that a Crazy Rich Asians streaming series will be coming to those with an HBO Max subscription in the near future. It will follow the events of the beloved romantic comedy and is confirmed to star Constance Wu, Henry Golding, Ronny Chieng and Michelle Yeoh back in their roles. Plus, the movie's co-writer Adele Lim is set to showrun and executive produce the series alongside Crazy Rich Asian author Kevin Kwan, Nina Jacobson, Brad Simpson, and the movie's director Jon M. Chu. Here's what Lim had to say in the announcement:

It wasn't specified if the series will cover the events of both China Rich Girlfriend and Rich People Problems, but having the author on board is definitely a good sign for fans of the trilogy of books. Chu also said this of the Crazy Rich Asians follow-up that's long been in the making:

If you've been following along all these years, you probably know that Crazy Rich Asians' sequel was greenlit not long after the movie's blockbuster success. But then, the project was stalled due to a pay disparity controversy between co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. Then, over the years, we've heard multiple updates about a sequel that never came to pass. This ultimately sounds like the best-case scenario, considering most of the talent that made the original a sensation are all back together.

Why I'm Surprised It's A TV Show

Look, I'm all for any property based on a book to be turned into a TV show. It just gives audiences more time to see the characters' plotlines develop, and there's definitely a lot of characters to explore in Crazy Rich Asians. But given the first movie was one of the few romantic comedies to break big among moviegoers, I must say I'm surprised Warner Bros. decided to go this route.

Though, it does seem like this route was the one that all the original creatives opted for, and I'm excited to see it once it's out, and I'm so happy this Crazy Rich Asians reunion is finally, actually in the works. For real. Now we have to wait and see if Awkwafina, Gemma Chan, Harry Shum Jr and more of the original cast will also join, too.

Stephen Colbert's The Late Show was canceled ahead the merger between Paramount and Skydance Media, marking the end of an era. But since then, Colbert has moved onto other endeavors, including an in-development Lord of the Rings movie. Now, however, it seems that Paramount Skydance's imminent merger with Warner Bros. Discovery might have an impact on that fantasy film as well. Per a recent update on the project, it hit a major speed bump, as questions loom about LOTR and its profitability, which allegedly hinge on another movie entirely.

What's Going On With Stephen Colbert's LOTR Movie?

Per a recent report from KnightEdgeMedia.Com, Colbert's Lord of the Rings project has allegedly hit major speed bumps in its development. As the merger nears finalization, there's reportedly fear that the franchise isn't as profitable as it once was. It's said that executives would sooner wait and see how The Lord Of The Rings: The Hunt for Gollum performs in theaters first.

In short, there's supposedly no guarantee that Colbert's movie even happens until studio execs see the box office returns on a movie that won't release until the end of the 2027 movie schedule. That's a long time for a movie to sit in limbo, so it's easy to see why some may worry this project is dead, even if Warner Bros. has confirmed the movie is still in development.

Several Details About Stephen Colbert's Lord Of The Rings Are Known Right Now

This is a bummer update for fans of LOTR, some of whom were no doubt excited to see Colbert's take on the six uncovered chapters of the movie. His film would also mark a big-screen, live-action debut for beloved character Tom Bombadil, who was last featured in Rings of Power.

For now, though, there still seems to be hope that this movie will happen. The downside is that we may be waiting a long time to ever see it hit the big screen. An optimist might say we've already waited decades to see those unfilmed chapters come to life. What's a few more years?

As for questions about whether The Lord of the Rings is still profitable, those assumptions began to crop up after The War of the Rohirrim flopped in theaters in 2024. While critics praised the animated LOTR movie for how well it was made, it failed to capture the attention of the mainstream and went largely unnoticed.

Is that a fair movie to base LOTR's success on? Does this have anything to do with Stephen Colbert's past comments about his former employers at Paramount? We don't have the answers, but these are questions people will likely be asking. Meanwhile, I'll just be remaining optimistic in regard to Colbert's Lord of the Rings movie materializing, because I'd love to see his take on Middle-earth.

Tom Cruise’s big 2026 movie release, Digger, is here, and for once we’re not talking about the actor’s daring stunts and action set pieces. This time it’s all about Cruise’s performance as a wealthy oil tycoon, and I had to ask the movie’s co-stars about what it was like to see the movie star take on the character in real time.

In Digger, Cruise plays an aggressive, egotistical and eccentric fictional character – which is very unlike Tom Cruise’s own reputation. I mean, he famously gives out coconut cakes to just about everyone he knows during the holiday season. During CinemaBlend’s interview with Riz Ahmed and Sandra Hüller, I asked Ahmed if Cruise was checking in with him in between takes, because during their scenes there’s a lot of intense yelling in his direction. In Ahmed’s words:

It sounds like Tom Cruise absolutely lived up to his name on the set of Digger despite his very different leading role. As Riz Ahmed told us, the actor gave him a round of applause even though he had just messed up. Ahmed also went as far as to say his co-star was “insanely positive”. Hüller shared her own take on working with Cruise with these words:

In Digger, Tom Cruise completely changes his typical on-screen persona by wearing prosthetics, a bodysuit and going for a Southern accent. The performance has inspired some polarizing reactions, which Warner Bros. has been embracing head-on for its marketing.

Riz Ahmed plays Dr. Nirav Ganesh, who is Digger’s head of environmental safety. When Digger’s offshore drilling rig located near Greenland cracks a massive glacier that threatens to cause environmental disaster, Ganesh is the one to share the bad news and advise him on what to do next. As you can imagine, Digger doesn’t listen to the doctor much. Hüller plays the role of Emma Rockwell, Digger’s half-sister and business partner.

Tom Cruise came to Digger with a storied career already under his belt, but it sounds like one of the reasons for his continued success is the way in which he treats the others around him. It’s great to hear from Riz Ahmed and Sandra Hüller that he was a pleasure to work with even when he was playing a real piece of work on set.

The movie also features the talents of John Goodman, Michael Stuhlbarg, Jessa Plemons, Emma D’Arcy and Sophie Wide. You can check out Digger yourself in theaters now.

It's a wild time currently for the TV and film industry. For months now, folks have been following as Paramount attempted to acquire Warner Bros. and its properties. This process was far from simple and was met with quite a bit of backlash. Over the summer, the merger was temporarily blocked by a judge, and there have also been antitrust lawsuits in play. It looks like the acquisition will indeed happen, and even Universal's head honcho recently spoke about it being "bad" for business. Let's break it all down.

Plenty of critics have come out with foreboding comments about how this merger will influence the industry, such as Netflix's co-CEO Ted Sarandos. Now Donna Langley, who is the chairman of NBCUniversal Entertainment, has spoken out. Deadline reports that she said, "I think it's bad for everything" before expanding upon her thoughts at a Q&A at the Bloomberg Screentime conference. She was quoted saying:

There are lots of questions about how the Warner Bros. and Paramount deal will impact the entire industry. Paramount is reportedly expecting things to go through as early as October 6th, with the new entity being named Skydance Corp. The burgeoning studio made a number of agreements to buoy the theatrical experience, pledging to release at least 30 movies in theaters for 2027 and 2028. What's more, it pledged to guarantee a 45-day exclusive theatrical release for those titles before they eventually go to streaming.

Later in the same Q&A Langley referenced Disney's acquisition of 20th Century Fox in 2019. She spoke about there being less studios overall, offering:

This is only the latest example of major film names sharing their disapproval of the Paramount and Warner Bros. deal. For instance, actors like Mark Ruffalo and Kristen Stewart signed an open letter against the merger, prompting a response from the powers that be at Paramount. There are concerns that the newly formed company would have a monopoly over the industry, resulting in fewer jobs and less choice for moviegoers. The deal would result in there being just four studios in the entire U.S., and there being less of a sense of competition for the industry.

As previously mentioned, the Paramount and Warner Bros. deal is expected to go through on October 6th. We'll just have to see how other figures in the industry respond if/when that happens.

A studio has a few ways to respond when the responses to its expensive new movie debut are all over the place, which is the case with Digger's reactions. A studio can cherry-pick the glowing quotes, slap five stars across the trailer and quietly pretend nobody used the word “insufferable.” However, it would appear that for the new Tom Cruise vehicle, Warner Bros. is choosing to directly address the polarizing reviews and haters.

Digger, Alejandro González Iñárritu’s new climate satire starring Cruise as billionaire oil tycoon Digger Rockwell, has its review embargo lifted. With that, critics are immediately divided into two camps: those who didn’t dig it and those calling it a masterpiece. The studio shared a new promo on its official X account telling moviegoers to “Decide for yourself.” Better yet, the ad below pairs some of the nastier reactions with the high praise:

The promo repeatedly juxtaposes positive and negative reactions. When it shows a “Masterpiece,” it also shows “Unpleasant.” “Brilliant” faces “Baffling.” The ad eventually lands on the line, “Same film, different truth,” which is brilliantly paired with Cruise’s character saying, “Never afraid to tell the truth. Whatever dat is.” That is certainly one way to lean into a mixed reception.

At the time of writing, Digger sits at 53% on Rotten Tomatoes from 116 reviews, which is about as close as you can get to critics collectively shrugging and saying, “You’re going to have to handle this one yourself.”

The reviews themselves are all over the place. Variety called Cruise’s performance bombastic and the movie too didactic, while Time Out gave it four stars and commended its wild ambition. The Los Angeles Times landed somewhere in between, describing the movie as messy but finding plenty to admire in Cruise’s swing-for-the-fences performance.

Given these wildly different reactions, if I were Warner Bros., I might do exactly what they are doing here. From the very Digger first trailer, it seemed pretty clear that trying to sand off the weirdness would be impossible anyway.

Cruise has spent years reminding audiences that he can hang from airplanes, launch motorcycles off cliffs, sprint like the rent is due, and allegedly even optimizes his sports watching. Digger gives him something very different.

The movie casts him as an eccentric Texas oil magnate, whose company helps trigger a potentially disastrous environmental crisis. Cruise is buried under prosthetics, working with a broad accent and going method to play a character far removed from Ethan Hunt or Pete Mitchell. The supporting cast includes Riz Ahmed, John Goodman, Sandra Hüller, Jesse Plemons and Michael Stuhlbarg. That alone makes the movie interesting to me, even before you get to Iñárritu swinging at climate change, greed and political dysfunction in the form of a black comedy.

Although some critics think those swings land and others think the movie falls over trying, it all makes Warner Bros.’ marketing response unexpectedly refreshing. There is something funny about a studio looking at reviews calling its movie “magnificent” and “insufferable” and deciding both belong in the trailer.

Digger hits the 2026 movie calendar, opening in theaters and IMAX on Oct. 2. At this point, I almost feel challenged to see which side I end up on.

There have been a lot of big movies to hit the 2026 movie calendar this year, with titles like Michael and Spider-Man: Brand New Day breaking some all-time records. It’s Tom Cruise, however, who’s got everyone's attention currently, with the impending release of Digger. First reactions to Alejandro González Iñárritu’s dark comedy have started to drop, and I have to say the divisive response from critics is only making me more interested in what exactly is going on here.

Even after watching Digger’s wild trailer, I had a lot of unanswered questions, but basically it seems like Tom Cruise plays the world’s most powerful man Digger Rockwell, who must save humanity before the disaster he unleashed destroys everything. A lot of the first reactions hitting X (Twitter) are overwhelmingly positive, as Carla Renata, aka The Curvy Critic posts:

Erik Davis agrees Digger is a “big swing,” that not everyone will enjoy, but it’s definitely worth the experience. Riz Ahmed is a “blast to watch,” Davis writes, and of the movie’s star, he says:

Josh Blumenkranz doesn’t quite buy into Tom Cruise’s unhinged look and accent, but the movie overall is a must-see satirical commentary on our world, he says. In the critic’s words:

As exciting as it is to see these rave reviews, it’s actually comments from critics like Mark Daniell of Sun Media, who uses words like “manic and melancholy” that have me even more excited than before to witness Tom Cruise’s performance for myself. Daniell writes:

But as most of the early reactions acknowledged, Digger is a divisive movie, and there are definitely critics who don’t think Alejandro Iñárritu and Tom Cruise quite nailed it. Joey Magidson of Awards Radar writes:

Showbiz 411 pushes back at the film’s designation as a comedy and ultimately labels it a “missed opportunity.” Their full reaction reads:

Love it or hate it, Digger is definitely going to have people talking, and the fact that it’s already causing strong reactions all over the spectrum just gives me another reason to be excited about it. If you’re as intrigued as I am, grab your tickets and that unique Digger popcorn bucket and get ready for Tom Cruise’s newest film to hit theaters Friday, October 2.

The Sadfleck has become such a huge part of our collective cultural consciousness that it has its own nickname. In fact, it’s such a big deal, I wrote an entire sentence about it without even mentioning the name Ben Affleck and I still bet you knew exactly the moment I was talking about. The actor himself has encountered the meme in the wild and has commented on the viral video before in a way that was both hilarious and rueful. So, it’s certainly a defining moment for the Batman V Superman star, but I find it hard to believe it happened an entire decade ago.

You know the “Sad Affleck” meme. Back when Ben Affleck was doing press for Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice alongside fellow star Henry Cavill, the two were asked about the reception to the Zack Snyder film. Cavill started giving a candid answer, but Affleck just sat there looking, well, sad. Then some enterprising YouTuber out Simon Garfunkel’s “Sound of Silence” on in the background of the video. A viral moment was born.

Now, 10 years later, that YouTuber was asked about the Sadfleck meme by Tom Butler, the Yahoo interviewer who’d originally asked about Batman V Superman’s critical reception. I’d never really thought deeply about how he’d come up with it, thinking it was a creative choice, but the viral video creator, Kyle Miller, admitted it wasn’t even something he came up with. After the interview was posted, it was actually a fan reply that got Miller thinking.

The process was a little more sophisticated than just slapping the song onto interview footage, though not much. Miller also took the opportunity to zoom in on Affleck’s face as Cavill started talking about “the interesting thing” about all the mixed reviews.

Miller says he was never paid or earned money for the viral video, but he did feel its considerable cultural impact. “Sound of Silence” briefly charted again, and the YouTuber was listening to the radio when the moment was brought up:

It was the music combination with the close-up that really made the video so memorable. Well, that and the fact that this seems to be Ben Affleck’s resting face during high-profile moments. Just check out this time he and then-wife Jennifer Lopez attended the Grammys together. Of course, more “Sad Affleck” comments rolled around. He’s a great actor, director and writer, but there’s been plenty of speculation he doesn’t love the press and promotional part of Hollywood.

It officially happened a few months ago, but I’m still shook up Zack Snyder’s movie dropped 10 years ago now. I probably shouldn’t be, as so much time has passed I'd honestly kind of forgotten Dawn of Justice was even a part of that movie title. We’ve moved on to James Gunn’s take on DC and Matt Reeves’ take on Batman, but the legacy of the Sad Affleck meme will likely live on as long as Ben Affleck does.

In Warner Bros’s pantheon of iconic movies from recent years, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman and Margot Robbie is Barbie. But, did you know that at some point Gadot was considered for both roles? Let’s break down the story, and how the actress just addressed the hot pink role that never was for her.

Why Margot Robbie Wanted Gal Gadot For Barbie

Barbie was in the works for years before Warner Bros, Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig became the minds behind a movie that became a phenomenon when it came out in the summer of 2023. Previous iterations of the project included Amy Schumer leaving one version due to creative differences and Anne Hathaway being considered for another version of the role.

When Warner Bros. took hold of the Barbie movie, Robbie became quickly attached and hired Greta Gerwig to write the script and direct. Here’s how Gadot comes in, per Robbie to Vogue:

Word on the street is that Gerwig convinced Margot Robbie to take the titular role, and a formal offer was never made to Gal Gadot. Let’s get to what the Wonder Woman star thinks about the whole thing.

What Gal Gadot Thinks About Missing Out On The Role

Gadot was asked about being eyed for Barbie while on the Happy Sad Confused podcast. As she reacted:

Sounds like there’s absolutely no hard feelings from Gal Gadot about not ultimately being asked to be in Barbie. I mean, especially after Robbie’s flattering comments, how could you? As she added:

Not only is it safe to say Margot Robbie is the perfect Barbie, Gal Gadot sounds like she knows it, too. Though, it does seem like she could have played one of the other Barbies? Ultimately, Issa Rae, Kate McKinnon, Alexandra Shipp, Emma Mackey, Hari Nef, Dua Lipa and Nicola Coughlan (among others) played the supporting Barbies.

Hey, Gal Gadot may not be Barbie, but she’s literally an action figure thanks to her now-defunct time as the DCEU's Wonder Woman. You can see Gadot in her latest movie, Runner, where she totally channels Tom Cruise right now with an Amazon Prime Video subscription.

Practical Magic flopped at the box office back in 1998 but came to earn cult status, largely for those in search of cozy fall movies to watch with midnight margarita in hand. Nearly three decades later, Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman are back as the Owens sisters for Practical Magic 2. I was expecting critics to be charmed, if not by nostalgia then possibly by the objectively talented cast. Instead, most of the reviews are full of not-so-glamorous descriptions.

Maisie Williams and Joey King now portray Sally’s two daughters, who become aware of their family’s abilities and the curse that haunts the Owens women. There also seems to be a curse haunting this franchise with critics, because Witney Seibold of SlashFilm rates it just 4 out of 10, calling it “staggeringly unfunny, and really sloppily assembled.” Sally and Gillian are “unbearably obnoxious,” Seibold’s Practical Magic 2 review says, as she writes:

Anna McKibbin of AV Club grades Practical Magic 2 a D- ahead of its release on the 2026 movie calendar, saying that abandoning New England for cold and gray London gives the sequel an "antiseptic harshness.” The script constantly stalls out on “a series of convoluted contrivances” as it searches for an audience who doesn’t exist. In McKibbin’s words:

Todd Gilchrist of Variety says sometimes the best way to honor a beloved experience is to just leave it alone. Rather than making Practical Magic 2 an improvement over the critically panned first movie, Susanne Bier is content to have Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman retread the original for this “overlong, predictable” sequel. Gilchrist continues:

Not everyone is disappointed in the finished product, however. While Amelia Emberwing of The Wrap admits Practical Magic 2 has its issues, it also serves as a “fantastical reunion,” writing:

Alison Foreman of IndieWire is also satisfied with the sequel, rating it a B+. While it falls into the trap of mistaking alternate scenery for fresh ideas, there’s obvious appeal to watching Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock do literally anything together. That goes for Stockard Channing and Dianne Wiest, too, as Foreman writes:

Many people will surely find the charm in revisiting these characters three decades later, but critics overall have not been wowed by the sequel. Practical Magic 2 is premiering to a 36% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes. However, don’t let these reviews stop you from drawing your own conclusions. The movie hits the big screen on Friday, September 11.

When it comes to cozy fall movies that aren’t scary, 1998’s Practical Magic has been on the rotation for me every few years. And every time I watch it, I start thinking it’s flawless before something happens about halfway through that just doesn’t work for me. As we await Practical Magic 2 on the 2026 movie schedule this weekend, I need to talk about this. SPOILERS are ahead for the 1998 movie.

I Think Practical Magic Doesn’t Work For One Reason

To get ready for the sequel, I turned on Practical Magic with my HBO Max subscription. I hadn’t seen it in probably five years. As usual, when I started it, I was drawn in right away by the 1990s witchy aesthetic and Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman’s incredible chemistry as the Owens sisters. Then something happened that also always happens: Aidan Quinn’s Investigator Gary Hallet struts into the movie, and sort of ruins it for me.

If you don’t remember, halfway through the movie, Gary Hallet, who is a state investigator, arrives from Tucson, Arizona, digging around for Jimmy, who’s the boyfriend of Kidman’s Gilly, who the sisters inadvertently killed and tries to resurrect with magic. And look, I’m a complete sucker for a romance plotline, but, for some reason, Sally’s sudden romance with Gary just bothers me. I think the movie bit off more than it could chew, and the plotline feels like it’s shoehorning in an unnecessary B-plot, or perhaps the two actors have bad chemistry together. No matter what it is, it always sticks out like a sore thumb, and I do a little eye roll.

How I’d Recast The Spell If I Could

It’s hard to say what went wrong with Practical Magic’s romance plotline. I see why it’s there – the movie is about breaking generational curses, and every man who loves them is an Owens. By having Gary there, it shows Sally that there’s love out there for her despite the death of her husband and father to her two daughters.

I think one thing that’s totally unsexy about their romance is that Gary is trying to see if she murdered Jimmy, and doesn’t seem at all aware that it might have been self-defense. Gary is aware that Jimmy is a suspect in a string of murders involving young women, and yet he treats Sally like she’s his prime suspect before they randomly make out in between one of his interrogations. I also feel like in a movie that’s about sisterhood and multi-generational women in the same family, Gary gets a lot more to do than Gilly, their aunts, or Sally’s daughters. That's really frustrating.

I do hope that the upcoming sequel can break the curse that I think the movie sadly has. While the 1998 movie was technically a flop when it came out, I think there’s a good reason why it was revived for a second film. My problems aside, Bullock and Kidman’s sister dynamic is electric, and there’s something so cozy, mystical and feminine about the original that makes me go back to it again and again.

It’s still kind of amazing that Coyote vs. Acme made it onto the 2026 movie release schedule at all. Warner Bros. shelved the finished Looney Tunes movie in 2023, along with other big films, to get tax write-offs worth millions. Later, the studio changed its mind and let the filmmakers look for a new distributor. That’s when Ketchup Entertainment stepped in, and now plenty of people are showing up to see the movie on the big screen. We know the film had an impressive box office debut, but is it actually a hit? And how much does it need to earn to make money?

What The Box Office Numbers Look Like

Box Office Mojo reports that Coyote vs. Acme has made about $38.6 million in the US and $49.5 million worldwide as of September 8. It opened with $15.9 million domestically, so it’s bringing in steady business instead of ticket sales quickly falling off a cliff. Using the phrase “falling off a cliff” for a Wile E. Coyote movie might not be the best choice of words.

The movie’s original production budget was about $70 million, which is what Warner Bros. allegedly spent to make it. (The studio hasn't released specific numbers, but that's what's we've heard.) The studio first decided it wasn’t worth spending another $30 to $40 million to market and release the film. Later, Ketchup bought the movie for around $50 million. For Ketchup, the original $70 million budget doesn’t matter much since Warner Bros. already covered it. Their real investment was about $50 million for the distribution rights.

An old Hollywood rule says a movie needs to make about 2.5 times its cost at the box office to turn a profit. For Coyote vs. Acme, that means it would need to earn around $125 million worldwide to really get rolling. With $49.5 million so far, it’s still about $75.5 million away from that goal.

But before anyone rushes to paint "$125 MILLION OR BUST" on a rocket, remember that the 2.5 times rule is just a guideline, not a strict rule. The real math is a lot more complicated.

The Math Is Even Messier Than It Seems

Just because the movie made $50 million at the box office doesn’t mean Ketchup pockets all of that. Theaters keep part of the ticket sales, and the distributor also had to spend money to market and release the film. Still, box office earnings aren’t the only way Coyote vs. Acme can make money.

Ketchup bought the rights instead of paying to make the movie from the start, and they can keep making money from Digital rentals, purchases, DVDs, TV, streaming, and other deals. These extra income streams can add a lot. Major studio movies often make as much or more from these sales as from theaters, especially for family-friendly or nostalgic films like this one. For a mid-budget movie like Coyote vs. Acme, Digital and home sales could bring in several million more, and streaming or TV deals might add another $10 to $20 million. This all affects how much of the box office money actually goes to Ketchup.

$125 million is a helpful target, but it’s not a magic number that guarantees profitability. Coyote vs. Acme has already achieved a lot for a smaller distributor. Its $15.9 million opening was the company's biggest ever, and audiences gave it an A CinemaScore while critics were very positive. Still, whether or not it will actually be a big office winner is a lot more uncertain.

The movie might keep doing well at the box office. As of September 8, Coyote vs. Acme was only behind Spider-Man: Brand New Day and The Odyssey for the month’s domestic earnings. There’s still a long way to go before it’s truly profitable in theaters, but after years stuck in a Warner Bros. vault, it’s impressive that Wile E. Coyote is even part of the conversation. So far, this Acme product hasn’t blown up in anyone's face, but the road ahead is still a winding one for the little flick that could.

After years of fans keeping the hope alive, Coyote vs. Acme is now showing in theaters. It deserves our attention after the long and winding road it took to hit theaters, no painted tunnel gag involved.

Looney Tunes fans have had reason to celebrate as of late, given the long-awaited release of Coyote vs. Acme. The had an impressive box office debut and was met with critical acclaim this past weekend, and that’s particularly gratifying when considering its road to the cinema. Warner Bros. was set on shelving the film for financial reasons before Ketchup Entertainment acquired it. Now, with the legal comedy having seen the light of day and found success, the director of another scrapped movie is seeking support.

Back in 2022, Warner Bros. Discovery confirmed it wouldn’t release a few titles in favor of tax write-offs, with one of those being the much-discussed Batgirl movie. The other film was Scoob! Holiday Haunt, a Christmas-themed prequel to 2020’s Scoob!. Many have since spoken out in opposition to the media conglomerate’s decision to put the animated film on ice. Co-director Michael Kurinsky recently stoked up those feelings yet again by taking to Instagram to share a message in the aftermath of Coyote vs. Acme’s release:

Kurinsky’s post also includes a still from Holiday Haunt, which shows the young Mystery Inc. members, including that lovable pup known as Scooby-Doo. Per what’s known about the movie, it sees young Shaggy Rogers celebrating Scooby’s first Christmas at a holiday-themed resort with the gang. The festivities are interrupted by the presence of a supernatural force, leading the kid sleuths to investigate. It’s a fun premise, which admittedly makes the film’s shelving that much more of a tough notion to fathom.

Co-directed by Kurinsky and Bill Haler, Scoob! Holiday Haunt was announced in 2021 and was meant to be released on HBO Max (then known as Max) in December 2022. WBD’s reason for cutting the movie not only stemmed from cost-cutting initiatives but also a content strategy shift. At the time, the company sought to prioritize theatrical releases in the wake of the COVID pandemic as opposed to streaming offerings. Despite the movie's release being canceled, production was still completed in 2022, with the Scoob! offshoot’s score even being recorded.

In terms of Coyote vs. Acme, that film became a topic of discussion in 2023, at which point Warner announced it would become a $30 million tax write-off. Fans subsequently expressed disapproval and, at the same time WBD sought to sell off the film to other companies. While bids from Amazon, Netflix and Paramount had been turned down by early 2024, Ketchup Entertainment inked a deal for the film’s rights in 2025. Fans remained vocal throughout that time and, in the finished film, there’s even a tribute for its supporters.

There’s been no indication as to whether Scoob! Holiday Haunt will ever see the light of day. However, it still seems that Michael Kurinsky isn’t ready to give up on the movie (which also features one of Andrew Braugher’s final performances). I’m not sure if anything will come of this situation but, as a lifelong Scooby-Doo fan, I certainly wouldn’t be mad if someone picked up the movie and released it.

For now, head over to your local theater to check out Coyote vs. Acme, which is playing alongside other 2026 movie releases.

Zack Snyder’s next big-screen effort, The Last Photograph, is set to hit theaters in 2027, but the director has kept his fanbase active and talkative with a slew of throwback pics of Henry Cavill’s Superman and other reminders of his DCEU days. (It being the 10th anniversary of Batman v Superman helped.) Just this week, he showed up at the Warner Bros. studio lot and sparked a ton of speculation about the reasoning behind him showing up.

As it happens, Snyder wasn’t there to chat up WB heads about new projects for DC characters, or reworking any of his past projects involving DC characters. Instead, according to Page Six, he was on hand to host a screening of the 1981 sword-and-sorcery epic Excalibur, helmed by John Boorman, that was held only for Warner staff members, and reportedly without any cameras allowed.

That outcome is quite the disappointing reveal for anyone sincerely hoping that Snyder was teasing something more fruitful with his pic in front of the iconic water tower. There may be some semblance of truth to theorizing that his return to WB (five years after that relationship soured in 2021) was a show of support for the studio amidst the legal hullabaloo regarding Paramount’s merger attempts, but it’s hard to know for sure.

That said, the outlet points out that beyond the screening, Snyder may have had an ulterior motive for his Burbank trip.

The Lowkey Reason Why Zack Snyder May Have Met With WB Execs

Zack Snyder's past issues with Warner Bros. were mainly tied to the Powers That Be who were eventually replaced by current studio bosses Michael De Luca and Pam Abdy. That duo reportedly gave the director a "hero's welcome" along with the rest of the staff, and they engaged Snyder in a Q&A after the screening.

It's reported that this meet-up could also help pave the way for Snyder's divisive remake plans for John Carpenter's Escape from New York that he brought up earlier this summer as a project he wants to bring to life. And following the WB event, Page Six notes that "it should come as no surprise" if any news updates point to Warner Bros. adding Escape from New York to its slate of upcoming movies.

Granted, there was already movement made on that front in December when CANAL+ entered into a multi-year agreement with Warner Bros. Discovery. CANAL+ is the parent company of StudioCanal, which is where Snyder's Escape remake is currently happening, so there's the possibility that Snake Plissken's return was imminent even without the Excalibur staff screening.

Could more projects come from this reteaming of the minds down the line? Surely, but it's way too early to start speculating on THAT. Maybe give it another week or so.

The future of Warner Bros. as a movie studio is a much-discussed topic these days, thanks to Paramount’s hindered-but-looming takeover, but we’re here to focus on movies, and not corporate overlords. (A thinning line, I know.) It’s not like WB has much to worry about with tentpole features, with James Gunn’s Man of Tomorrow, the Minecraft Movie sequel, and new Oceans and LOTR movies hitting theaters in 2027. But what about a couple of in-development projects that haven’t been updated on in a while: The Matrix 5 and The Jetsons live-action movie?

Amazingly enough, the studio itself confirmed that both the fifth live-action Matrix feature, and Jim Carrey’s rumored Jetsons feature are on the way, even if they won’t be showing up as 2026 movie releases. In a letter to its shareholders, Warner Bros. hyped up its past year of efforts, with lots of promising talk about the future, and that’s where the pair of drastically different science-fiction projects were namechecked. As it was stated:

To play devil's advocate, this wouldn't be the first time a studio has promised a project that never reached the production phase (or that got shelved indefinitely after its production). But this doesn't feel so much like a false promise, given the way both films are casually mentioned rather than given a spotlight.

Plus, they're named alongside two of the more highly anticipated WB projects that are in the works. One is of course Matt Reeves' return to Gotham City for The Batman: Part II, which was somewhat recently delayed from October 2027 to 2028, and which has yet to fully confirm who its villain(s) will be. Then there's the Game of Thrones movie from Andor's Beau Willimon that'll be titled Aegon's Conquest. To be fair, that project has yet to announce a director, but that seems like the only thing holding it back.

Here's a quick look at what we know so far about either The Matrix 5 and the Jetsons movie.

The Matrix 5 Quick Facts

• The first Matrix movie that won't have direct involvement from Lana and Lilly Wachowski, though Lana was previously revealed to be an executive producer.
• Cabin in the Woods, The Martian and Project Hail Mary screenwriter Drew Goddard is writing the script, and he will also make it his third directorial feature.
• Goddard approached Warner Bros. with his original idea for where to take the story, though that story has not been teased at all.

Reactions to the news about a new Matrix movie were mixed, with some fans saying the franchise didn't need to continue after Resurrections, while others were angry that the Wachowskis wouldn't be a creative force behind the scenes. I think Goddard is capable enough of steering this franchise in a new direction without all the prior lore weighing it down, so I'm glad that Warner Bros. is making sure to keep it in shareholders' minds.

The Jetsons Quick Facts

• In October 2025, Jim Carrey was reported to be making The Jetsons his first live-action movie since 2016 to be outside of the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise.
• Set to direct the live-action Jetsons movie was Colin Trevorrow, who was also said to be co-writing the screenplay with Joe Epstein.

Neither Trevorrow nor Epstein were namechecked in the shareholders report, but then neither was Drew Goddard, so I suppose we can't base any suspicions on a lack of reference.

Which one of these now confirmed projects are you most excited to see in theaters?

I think Zack Snyder knows exactly what happens when he posts anything remotely connected to DC. Give his fans a black-and-white image of Superman, a photo of Ben Affleck or the faintest whiff of unfinished Justice League business, and the SnyderVerse conversation immediately returns. This week, the director did something even more dangerous when he visited Warner Bros. Of course, all his fans are now saying the same thing. I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "re-score the gloomyverse."

Snyder shared a selfie on Instagram from the studio lot Wednesday, posing in front of the familiar Warner Bros. water tower. He did not offer much context, writing only, “Hanging out with a bunch of amazing people today down at the WB.” That was more than enough to get his followers asking whether he was discussing a new DC film project. Check out the image below.

How did fans of the Man of Steel filmmaker react to the selfie? With calm and candor, of course. Just kidding. Let’s break it down.

SnyderVerse Fans Obviously Had Thoughts About This Photo

The comments section on Snyder's post quickly filled with variations of the same question. Some fans wanted to know whether Snyder’s visit had anything to do with DC. Plenty of others skipped the speculation and went straight back to calling for Warner Bros. to restore his unfinished superhero universe. Several of those comments picked up thousands of likes.

Here are some of the very passionate reactions:

• @manureyesperiodista: “RESTORE THE SNYDERVERSE❤️🔥”
• @haydendbarton: “The call had to be made 🦇”
• @gunnverse: “Hey Zack! Is it dc related? 👀”
• @ranibarbierebarbearia “Dont give me hope!🙏🏾💪🏾🙌🏾”
• @matteothebest: “HOPEEEEEEEEE🙌👏❤️”
• @ratnogrillo: “Please sir, some good news about Snyderverse... 👍”
• @khanabadosh.ladka: “Apologies from WB accepted. Now restore the #snyderverse”
• @mastacr: “Let’s go boss #restorethesnyderverse 💪”
• @bojackt900: “HERE WE GOOOO 🔥🔥🔥 #RESTORETHESNYDERVERSE”
• @sainttrai: “You could not live with your own failure. And where did that bring you? Back to me.”

A few skeptical replies were mixed in, but the overall response was unmistakably positive for the moviemaker. One photo of Snyder standing near the Warner Bros. water tower was enough to bring the entire “Restore the SnyderVerse” campaign roaring back to life. But how likely is a resurrection of his cinematic world?

How Likely Is a SnyderVerse Return?

A live-action continuation of Snyder’s now-defunct DC universe still feels like a very long shot. For the better part of four years, DC Studios has been building a new connected franchise under James Gunn and Peter Safran. We’ve already had a new Superman, the unfortunate 2026 movie calendar misfire that was Supergirl, and plans for Batman and a much larger continuity are taking shape. Gunn and Safran have also made it clear that these projects are meant to fit within one shared story, though separate “Elseworlds” movies can still exist outside the main slate of releases.

That does not leave much room for Snyder to stroll back in and finish his original five-film arc exactly as planned. His version ended with several major threads still hanging, including Darkseid’s invasion, the Knightmare timeline and Batman’s eventual sacrifice. There may be unfinished business, but the DC train left that particular station years ago.

The Watchmen director has not completely shut the door, though. Earlier this year, he said there had been conversations about continuing the story through a comic or animated project. He did not announce anything, but he acknowledged that another format could give him the chance to finish what the live-action movies left behind. That is probably the most realistic route. An animated continuation would let him revisit those plans without bulldozing the groundwork Gunn’s Chapter One has already laid.

For now, all we actually have is a selfie and a caption vague enough to power several weeks of fan theories. Until someone says otherwise, the SnyderVerse remains where it has been for years: unfinished, but streaming with an HBO Max subscription.

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.