changing

David Robinson / Geograph

PA Media

‘Above bigotry’

Christian Concern

You may not know Eliot Mack’s name, but if a small robot has ever crept around your kitchen, you know his work.

Before he turned his MIT-trained mind to filmmaking, Mack helped lead a small team of engineers trying to solve a deeply relatable problem: how to avoid vacuuming. Whether it was figuring out how to get around furniture legs or unclog the brushes after a run-in with long hair, Mack designed everything onscreen first with software, troubleshooting virtually and getting 80% of the way there before a single part was ever manufactured.

The result was the Roomba.

When Mack pivoted to filmmaking in the early 2000s, he was struck by how chaotic Hollywood’s process felt. “You pitch the script, get the green light and you’re flying into production,” he says, sounding both amused and baffled. “There’s no CAD template, no centralized database. I was like, how do movies even get made?”

That question sent Mack down a new path, trading dust bunnies for the creative bottlenecks that slow Hollywood down.

In 2004 he founded Lightcraft Technology, a startup developing what would later be known as virtual production tools, born out of his belief that if you could design a robot in software, you should be able to design a shot the same way. The company’s early system, Previzion, sold for $180,000 and was used on sci-fi and fantasy shows like “V” and “Once Upon a Time.” But Jetset, its latest AI-assisted tool set, runs on an iPhone and offers a free tier, with pro features topping out at just $80 a month. It lets filmmakers scan a location, drop it into virtual space and block out scenes with camera moves, lighting and characters. They can preview shots, overlay elements and organize footage for editing — all from a phone. No soundstage, no big crew, no gatekeepers. Lightcraft’s pitch: “a movie studio in your pocket.”

A series on how the AI revolution is reshaping the creative foundations of Hollywood — from storytelling and performance to production, labor and power.

The goal, Mack says, is to put more power in the hands of the people making the work. “One of the big problems is how siloed Hollywood is,” he says. “We talked to an Oscar-winning editor who said, ‘I’m never going to get to make my movie’ — he was pigeonholed as just an editor. Same with an animator we know who has two Oscars.”

Eliot Mack, CEO of Lightcraft, an AI-powered virtual-production startup, wants to give creators the power and freedom to bring their ideas to life.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

To Mack, the revolution of Jetset recalls the scrappy, guerrilla spirit of Roger Corman’s low-budget productions, which launched the early careers of directors like Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese. For generations of creatives stuck waiting on permission or funding, he sees this moment as a reset button.

“The things you got good at — writing, directing, acting, creating, storytelling — they’re still crazy useful,” he says. “What’s changing is the amount of schlepping you have to do before you get to do the fun stuff. Your 20s are a gift. You want to be creating at the absolute speed of sound. We’re trying to get to a place where you don’t have to ask anyone. You can just make the thing.”

AI is reshaping nearly every part of the filmmaking pipeline. Storyboards can now be generated from a script draft. Lighting and camera angles can be tested before anyone touches a piece of gear. Rough cuts, placeholder VFX, even digital costume mock-ups can all be created before the first shot is filmed. What once took a full crew, a soundstage and a six-figure budget can now happen in minutes, sometimes at the hands of a single person with a laptop.

This wave of automation is arriving just as Hollywood is gripped by existential anxiety. The 2023 writers’ and actors’ strikes brought the industry to a standstill and put AI at the center of a fight over its future. Since then, production has slowed, crew sizes have shrunk and the streaming boom has given way to consolidation and cost-cutting.

According to FilmLA, on-location filming in Greater Los Angeles dropped 22.4% in early 2025 compared with the year before. For many of the crew members and craftspeople still competing for those jobs, AI doesn’t feel like an innovation. It feels like a new way to justify doing more with less, only to end up with work that’s less original or creative.

“AI scrapes everything we artists have made off the internet and creates a completely static, banal world that can never imagine anything that hasn’t happened before,” documentary filmmaker Adam Curtis warned during a directors panel at the 2023 Telluride Film Festival, held in the midst of the strikes. “That’s the real weakness of the AI dream — it’s stuck with the ghosts. And I think we’ll get fed up with that.”

How you feel about these changes often depends on where you sit and how far along you are in your career. For people just starting out, AI can offer a way to experiment, move faster and bypass the usual barriers to entry. For veterans behind the scenes, it often feels like a threat to the expertise they’ve spent decades honing.

Past technological shifts — the arrival of sound, the rise of digital cameras, the advancement of CGI — changed how movies were made, but not necessarily who made them. Each wave brought new roles: boom operators and dialogue coaches, color consultants and digital compositors. Innovation usually meant more jobs, not fewer.

But AI doesn’t just change the tools. It threatens to erase the people who once used the old ones.

Diego Mariscal has seen first hand as AI has cut potential jobs for grips.

(Jennifer Rose Clasen)

Diego Mariscal, 43, a veteran dolly grip who has worked on “The Mandalorian” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” saw the writing on the wall during a recent shoot. A visual effects supervisor opened his laptop to show off a reel of high-end commercials and something was missing. “There were no blue screens — none,” Mariscal recalls. “That’s what we do. We put up blues as grips. You’d normally hire an extra 10 people and have an extra three days of pre-rigging, setting up all these blue screens. He was like, ‘We don’t need it anymore. I just use AI to clip it out.’”

Mariscal runs Crew Stories, a private Facebook group with nearly 100,000 members, where working crew members share job leads, trade tips and voice their growing fears. He tries to keep up with the steady drip of AI news. “I read about AI all day, every day,” he says. “At least 20 posts a day.”

His fear isn’t just about fewer jobs — it’s about what comes next. “I’ve been doing this since I was 19,” Mariscal says of his specialized dolly work, which involves setting up heavy equipment and guiding the camera smoothly through complex shots. “I can push a cart in a parking lot. I can push a lawnmower. What else can I do?”

Who wins, who loses and what does James Cameron think?

Before AI and digital doubles, Mike Marino learned the craft of transformation the human way: through hands-on work and a fascination that bordered on obsession.

Marino was 5 years old when he first saw “The Elephant Man” on HBO. Horrified yet transfixed, he became fixated on prosthetics and the emotional power they could carry. As a teenager in New York, he pored over issues of Fangoria, studied monsters and makeup effects and experimented with sculpting his own latex masks on his bedroom floor.

Prosthetics artist Mike Marino asks a big question related to generative AI: What role do the human creatives play?

(Sean Dougherty / For The Times)

Decades later, Marino, 48, has become one of Hollywood’s leading makeup artists, earning Oscar nominations for “Coming 2 America,” “The Batman” and last year’s dark comedy “A Different Man,” in which he helped transform Sebastian Stan into a disfigured actor.

His is the kind of tactile, handcrafted work that once seemed irreplaceable. But today AI tools are increasingly capable of achieving similar effects digitally: de-aging actors, altering faces, even generating entire performances. What used to take weeks of experimentation and hours in a makeup trailer can now be approximated with a few prompts and a trained model. To Marino, AI is more than a new set of tools. It’s a fundamental change in what it means to create.

“If AI is so good it can replace a human, then why have any human beings?” he says. “This is about taste. It’s about choice. I’m a human being. I’m an artist. I have my own ideas — mine. Just because you can make 10,000 spaceships in a movie, should you?”

Marino is no technophobe. His team regularly uses 3D scanning and printing. But he draws the line at outsourcing creative judgment to a machine. “I’m hoping there are artists who want to work with humans and not machines,” he says. “If we let AI just run amok with no taste, no choice, no morality behind it, then we’re gone.”

Not everyone sees AI’s rise in film production as a zero-sum game. Some technologists imagine a middle path. Daniela Rus, director of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab and one of the world’s leading AI researchers, believes the future of filmmaking lies in a “human-machine partnership.”

AI, Rus argues, can take on time-consuming tasks like animating background extras, color correction or previsualizing effects, freeing up people to focus on what requires intuition and taste. “AI can help with the routine work,” she says. “But the human touch and emotional authenticity are essential.”

Few directors have spent more time grappling with the dangers and potential of artificial intelligence than James Cameron. Nearly 40 years before generative tools entered Hollywood’s workflow, he imagined a rogue AI triggering global apocalypse in 1984’s “The Terminator,” giving the world Skynet — now a cultural shorthand for the dark side of machine intelligence. Today, he continues to straddle that line, using AI behind the scenes on the upcoming “Avatar: Fire and Ash” to optimize visual effects and performance-capture, while keeping creative decisions in human hands. The latest sequel, due Dec. 19, promises to push the franchise’s spectacle and scale even further; a newly released trailer reveals volcanic eruptions, aerial battles and a new clan of Na’vi.

A scene from “Avatar: The Way of Water.” Director James Cameron differentiates between using machine-learning to reduce monotonous movie-making work and generative AI.

(Courtesy of 20th Century Studios/Courtesy of 20th Century Studios)

“You can automate a lot of processes that right now tie up a lot of artists doing mundane tasks,” Cameron told The Times in 2023 at a Beyond Fest screening of his 1989 film “The Abyss.” “So if we could accelerate the postproduction pipeline, then we can make more movies. Then those artists will get to do more exciting things.”

For Cameron, the promise of AI lies in efficiency, not elimination. “I think in our particular industry, it’s not going to replace people; it’s going to free them to do other things,” he believes. “It’s going to accelerate the process and bring the price down, which would be good because, you know, some movies are a little more expensive than others. And a lot of that has to do with human energy.”

Cameron himself directed five films between 1984 and 1994 and only three in the three decades since, though each one has grown increasingly complex and ambitious.

That said, Cameron has never been one to chase shortcuts for their own sake. “I think you can make pre-viz and design easier, but I don’t know if it makes it better,” he says. “I mean, if easy is your thing. Easy has never been my thing.”

He draws a line between the machine-learning techniques his team has used since the first “Avatar” to help automate tedious tasks and the newer wave of generative AI models making headlines today.

“The big explosion has been around image-based generative models that use everything from every image that’s ever been created,” he says. “We’d never use any of them. The images we make are computer-created, but they’re not AI-created.”

In his view, nothing synthetic can replace the instincts of a flesh-and-blood artist. “We have human artists that do all the designs,” he says. “We don’t need AI. We’ve got meat-I. And I’m one of the meat-artists that come up with all that stuff. We don’t need a computer. Maybe other people need it. We don’t.”

Reshaping creativity — and creative labor

Rick Carter didn’t go looking for AI as a tool. He discovered it as a lifeline.

The two-time Oscar-winning production designer, who worked with Cameron on “Avatar” and whose credits include “Jurassic Park” and “Forrest Gump,” began experimenting with generative AI tools like Midjourney and Runway during the pandemic, looking for a way to keep his creative instincts sharp while the industry was on pause. A longtime painter, he was drawn to the freedom the programs offered.

“I saw that there was an opportunity to create images where I didn’t have to go to anybody else for approval, which is the way I would paint,” Carter says by phone from Paris. “None of the gatekeeping would matter. I have a whole lot of stories on my own that I’ve tried to get into the world in various ways and suddenly there was a way to visualize them.”

Midjourney and Runway can create richly detailed images — and in Runway’s case, short video clips — from a text prompt or a combination of text and visuals. Trained on billions of images and audiovisual materials scraped from the internet, these systems learn to mimic style, lighting, composition and form, often with eerie precision. In a production pipeline, these tools can help concept artists visualize characters or sets, let directors generate shot ideas or give costume designers and makeup artists a fast way to test looks, long before physical production begins.

But as these tools gain traction in Hollywood, a deeper legal and creative dilemma is coming into focus: Who owns the work they produce? And what about the copyrighted material used to train them?

In June, Disney and Universal filed a federal copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, accusing the company of generating unauthorized replicas of characters such as Spider-Man, Darth Vader and Shrek using AI models trained on copyrighted material: what the suit calls a “bottomless pit of plagiarism.” It’s the most high-profile of several legal challenges now putting copyright law to the test in the age of generative AI.

“Forrest Gump” director Robert Zemeckis, left, with production designer Rick Carter at an art installation of the movie’s famed bench. (Carter family)

(Carter family)

Working with generative models, Carter began crafting what he calls “riffs of consciousness,” embracing AI as a kind of collaborative partner, one he could play off of intuitively. The process reminded him of the loose, improvisational early stages of filmmaking, a space he knows well from decades of working with directors like Robert Zemeckis and Steven Spielberg.

“I’ll just start with a visual or a word prompt and see how it iterates from there and what it triggers in my mind,” Carter says. “Then I incorporate that so it builds on its own in an almost free-associative way. But it’s still based upon my own intuitive, emotional, artistic, even spiritual needs at that moment.”

He describes the experience as a dialogue between two minds, one digital and one human: “One AI is artificial intelligence. The other AI is authentic intelligence — that’s us. We’ve earned it over this whole span of time on the planet.”

Sometimes, Carter says, the most evocative results come from mistakes. While sketching out a story about a hippie detective searching for a missing woman in the Himalayas, he accidentally typed “womb” into ChatGPT instead of “woman.” The AI ran with it, returning three pages of wild plot ideas involving gurus, seekers and a bizarre mystery set in motion by the disappearance.

“I couldn’t believe it,” he says. “I would never have taken it that far. The AI is so precocious. It is trying so much to please that it will literally make something out of the mistake you make.”

Carter hasn’t used generative AI on a film yet; most of his creations are shared only with friends. But he says the technology is already slipping into creative workflows in covert ways. “There are issues with copyrights with most of the studios so for now, it’s going to be mostly underground,” he says. “People will use it but they won’t acknowledge that they’re using it — they’ll have an illustrator do something over it, or take a photo so there’s no digital trail.”

Carter has lived through a major technological shift before. “I remember when we went from analog to digital, from ‘Jurassic Park’ on,” he says. “There were a lot of wonderful artists who could draw and paint in ways that were just fantastic but they couldn’t adapt. They didn’t want to — even the idea of it felt like the wrong way to make art. And, of course, most of them suffered because they didn’t make it from the Rolodex to the database in terms of people calling them up.”

He worries that some artists may approach the technology with a rigid sense of authorship. “Early on, I found that the less I used my own ego as a barometer for whether something was artistic, the more I leaned into the process of collaboratively making something bigger than the sum of its parts — and the bigger and better the movies became.”

Others, like storyboard artist Sam Tung, are bracing against the same wave with a quiet but unshakable defiance.

Tung, whose credits include “Twisters” and Christopher Nolan’s upcoming adaptation of “The Odyssey,” has spent the last two years tracking the rise of generative tools, not just their capabilities but their implications. As co-chair of the Animation Guild’s AI Committee, he has been on the front lines of conversations about how these technologies could reshape creative labor.

To artists like Tung, the rise of generative tools feels deeply personal. “If you are an illustrator or a writer or whatever, you had to give up other things to take time to develop those skills,” he says. “Nobody comes out of the womb being able to draw or write or act. Anybody who does that professionally spent years honing those skills.”

Tung has no interest in handing that over to a machine. “It’s not that I’m scared of it — I just don’t need it,” he says. “If I want to draw something or paint something, I’ll do it myself. That way it’s exactly what I want and I actually enjoy the process. When people tell me they responded to a drawing I did or a short film I made with friends, it feels great. But anything I’ve made with AI, I’ve quickly forgotten about. There’s basically nothing I get from putting it on social media, other than the ire of my peers.”

What unsettles him isn’t just the slickness of AI’s output but how that polish is being used to justify smaller crews and faster turnarounds. “If this is left unchecked, it’s very easy to imagine a worst-case scenario where team sizes and contract durations shrink,” Tung says. “A producer who barely understands how it works might say, ‘Don’t you have AI to do 70% of this? Why do you need a whole week to turn around a sequence? Just press the button that says: MAKE MOVIE.’ ”

At 73, Carter isn’t chasing jobs. His legacy is secure. “If they don’t hire me again, that’s OK,” he says. “I’m not in that game anymore.” He grew up in Hollywood — his father was Jack Lemmon’s longtime publicist and producing partner — and has spent his life watching the industry evolve. Now, he’s witnessing a reckoning unlike any he, or anyone else, has ever imagined.

“I do have concerns about who is developing AI and what their values are,” he says. “What they use all this for is not necessarily something I would approve of — politically, socially, emotionally. But I don’t think I’m in a position to approve or not.”

Earlier this year, the Palisades fire destroyed Carter’s home, taking with it years of paintings and personal artwork. AI, he says, has given him a way to keep creating through the upheaval. “It saved me through the pandemic, and now it’s saving me through the fire,” he says, as if daring the universe to test him again. “It’s like, go ahead, throw something else at me.”

‘Prompt and pray?’ Not so fast

Many in the industry may still be dipping a toe into the waters of AI. Verena Puhm dove in.

The Austrian-born filmmaker studied acting and directing in Munich and Salzburg before moving to Los Angeles, where she built a globe-spanning career producing, writing and developing content for international networks and streamers. Her credits range from CNN’s docuseries “History of the Sitcom” to the German reboot of the cult anthology “Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction” and a naval documentary available on Tubi. More recently, she has channeled that same creative range into a deepening exploration of generative tools.

Puhm first began dabbling with AI while using Midjourney to design a pitch deck, but it wasn’t until she entered a timed generative AI filmmaking challenge at the 2024 AI on the Lot conference — informally dubbed a “gen battle” — that the creative potential of the medium hit her.

“In two hours, I made a little mock commercial,” she remembers, proudly. “It was actually pretty well received and fun. And I was like, Oh, wow, I did this in two hours. What could I do in two days or two weeks?”

What started as experimentation soon became a second act. This summer, Puhm was named head of studio for Dream Lab LA, a new creative arm of Luma AI, which develops generative video tools for filmmakers and creators. There, she’s helping shape new storytelling formats and supporting emerging creators working at the intersection of cinema and technology. She may not be a household name, but in the world of experimental storytelling, she’s fast becoming a key figure.

Verena Puhm, a director, writer and producer, has used generative AI in a number of her projects, says it’s breaking down barriers to entry.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

Some critics dismiss AI filmmaking as little more than “prompt and pray”: typing in a few words and hoping something usable comes out. Puhm bristles at the phrase.

“Anybody that says that tells me they’ve never tried it at all, because it is not that easy and simple,” she says. “You can buy a paintbrush at Home Depot for, what, $2? That doesn’t make you a painter. When smartphones first came out, there was a lot of content being made but that didn’t mean everyone was a filmmaker.”

What excites her most is how AI is breaking down the barriers that once kept ambitious ideas out of reach. Luma’s new Modify Video tool lets filmmakers tweak footage after it’s shot, changing wardrobe, aging a character, shifting the time of day, all without reshoots or traditional VFX. It can turn a garage into a spaceship, swap a cloudy sky for the aurora borealis or morph an actor into a six-eyed alien, no green screen required.

“It’s such a relief as an artist,” Puhm says. “If there’s a project I’ve been sitting on for six years because I didn’t have a $5 million budget — suddenly there’s no limit. I remember shopping projects around and being told by producers, ‘This scene has to go, that has to go,’ just to keep the budget low. Now everything is open.”

That sense of access resonates far beyond Los Angeles. At a panel during AI on the Lot, “Blue Beetle” director Ángel Manuel Soto reflected on how transformative AI might have been when he was first starting out. “I wish tools like this existed when I wanted to make movies in Puerto Rico, because nobody would lend me a camera,” he said. “Access to equipment is a privilege we sometimes take for granted. I see this helping kids like me from the projects tell stories without going bankrupt — or stealing, which I don’t condone.”

Puhm welcomes criticism of AI but only when it’s informed. “If you hate AI and you’ve actually tested the tools and educated yourself, I’ll be your biggest supporter,” she says. “But if you’re just speaking out of fear, with no understanding, then what are you even basing your opinion on?”

She understands why some filmmakers feel rattled, especially those who, like her, grew up dreaming of seeing their work on the big screen. “I still want to make features and TV series — that’s what I set out to do,” she says. “I hope movie theaters don’t go away. But if the same story I want to tell reaches millions of people on a phone and they’re excited about it, will I really care that it wasn’t in a theater?”

“I just feel like we have to adapt to the reality of things,” she continues. “That might sometimes be uncomfortable, but there is so much opportunity if you lean in. Right now any filmmaker can suddenly tell a story at a high production value that they could have never done before, and that is beautiful and empowering.”

For many, embracing AI boils down to a simple choice: adapt or get cut from the frame.

Hal Watmough, a BAFTA-winning British editor with two decades of experience, first began experimenting with AI out of a mix of curiosity and dread. “I was scared,” he admits. “This thing was coming into the industry and threatening our jobs and was going to make us obsolete.” But once he started playing with tools like Midjourney and Runway, he quickly saw how they could not only speed up the process but allow him to rethink what his career could be.

For an editor used to working only with what he was given, the ability to generate footage on the fly, cut with it immediately and experiment endlessly without waiting on a crew or a shoot was a revelation. “It was still pretty janky at that stage, but I could see the potential,” he says. “It was kind of intoxicating. I started to think, I’d like to start making things that I haven’t seen before.”

After honing his skills with various AI tools, Watmough created a wistful, vibrant five-minute animated short called “LATE,” about an aging artist passing his wisdom to a young office worker. Over two weeks, he generated 2,181 images using AI, then curated and refined them frame by frame to shape the story.

Earlier this year, he submitted “LATE” to what was billed as the world’s first AI animation contest, hosted by Curious Refuge, an online education hub for creative technologists — and, to his delight, he won. The prize included $10,000, a pitch meeting with production company Promise Studios and, as an absurd bonus, his face printed on a potato. But for Watmough, the real reward was the sense that he had found a new creative identity.

“There’s something to the fact that the winner of the first AI animation competition was an editor,” Watmough says. “With the advent of AI, yes, you could call yourself a filmmaker but essentially I’d say most people are editors. You’re curating, selecting, picking what you like — relying on your taste.”

Thanks to AI, he says he’s made more personal passion projects in the past year and a half than during his entire previous career. “I’ll be walking or running and ideas just come. Now I can go home that night and try them,” he says. “None of that would exist without AI. So either something exists within AI or it never exists at all. And all the happiness and fulfillment that comes with it for the creator doesn’t exist either.”

Watmough hasn’t entirely lost his fear of what AI might do to the creative workforce, even as he is energized by what it makes possible. “A lot of people I speak to in film and TV are worried about losing their jobs and I’m not saying the infrastructure roles won’t radically change,” he says. “But I don’t think AI is going to replace that many — if any — creative people.”

What it will do, he says, is raise the bar. “If anyone can create anything, then average work will basically become extinct or pointless. AI can churn out remakes until the cows come home. You’ll have to pioneer to exist.”

He likens the current moment to the birth of cinema more than a century ago — specifically the Lumière brothers’ “Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat,” the 1896 short that famously startled early audiences. In the silent one-minute film, a steam train rumbles toward the camera, growing larger. Some viewers reportedly leaped from their seats, convinced it was about to crash into them.

“People ran out of the theater screaming,” Watmough says. “Now we don’t even think about it. With AI, we’re at that stage again. We’re watching the steam train come into the station and people are either really excited or they’re running out of the theater in fear. That’s where we are, right at the start. And the potential is limitless.”

Then again, he adds with a dry laugh, “I’m an eternal optimist, so take what I say with a grain of salt.”

PRINCESS Charlotte loves Netflix smash K-Pop Demon Hunters, a six-year-old fan claims.

Ivy Brown wrote asking if the ten-year-old had seen the animated musical, calling it the “best movie ever”.

4

4

K-Pop Demon Hunters is currently Netflix’s most popular film ever and has been streamed a whopping 236 million times.

Within a week, a letter from Kensington Palace arrived at Ivy’s home in Wokingham, Berks.

It said: “You may be interested to know Golden from K-Pop Demon Hunters has been played during Changing the Guard at Buckingham Palace.”

It also thanked Ivy for her “support for Princess Charlotte”.

She said: “I think that Charlotte loves K-Pop Demon Hunters, so I’m happy.”

Asked where she keeps her letter, she added: “I keep it safe, I keep it in the kitchen.

“I took it to show-and-tell at school.

“I told my friends that I had a letter from Princess Charlotte and they were like, ‘Really?’

“Then I showed it to them and they were like, ‘Wow!’”

Her mum Louise said: “It was lovely to get such a personal note.

“Ivy was ecstatic.”

4

4

The Zionist narrative has been a dominating force in the United States for more than seven decades. Promoted by powerful lobbies, nurtured by Christian evangelicals, and echoed by mainstream media, it remained largely unchallenged until the outbreak of the genocide in Gaza.

In nearly two years, the unyielding images of horror, the scale of devastation, and the shocking loss of human lives have created an indomitable record of horror that has challenged the Zionist narrative. Poll after poll is registering a shift in public opinion vis-a-vis Israel. On both sides of the political divide, Americans are growing less enthusiastic about blanket support for the longstanding US ally. So what does this mean for US-Israeli relations?

In the short and medium term, not much. US arms, aid, security cooperation, and diplomatic backing for Israel will barely be affected. The support structure built up over almost eight decades cannot be expected to evaporate overnight.

But in the long term, US backing will be reduced. This means Israel will be forced to reconsider its aggressive posture in the region and roll back its plans to rule over all of historic Palestine.

What the polls say

Polls started picking up a shift in US public opinion, especially among young Democrats, even before the October 7, 2023 attacks. But afterwards, this change appeared to accelerate dramatically.

A poll conducted by Pew Research in March this year suggests that negative attitudes towards Israel have risen from 42 percent to 53 percent of all US adults since 2022. The shift is more pronounced among Democrats, from 53 percent to 69 percent for the same period.

What is remarkable about this change is that it is cross-generational. Among Democrats 50 and older – people who are usually moderate on foreign policy issues – negative attitudes towards Israel increased from 43 percent to 66 percent.

Expressions of sympathy have also changed. According to an August poll (PDF) by The Economist and YouGov, 44 percent of Democrats sympathise more with Palestinians, compared with 15 percent with Israelis; among Independents, these figures are 30 and 21 percent.

The same poll suggests that a plurality of Americans now believes Israel’s continuing bombing of Gaza is unwarranted, and some 78 percent want an immediate ceasefire, including 75 percent of Republicans. The percentage of respondents who said Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians was 43 percent; those who disagreed were just 28 percent.

More significantly, a plurality – 42 percent – favour decreasing support for Israel; among Republicans this number stands at 24 percent.

A Harvard-Harris poll (PDF) from July reveals perhaps the most concerning trend for Israel’s advocates: 40 percent of young Americans now favour Hamas, not Israel. While this is likely a reflection of general sympathy for the Palestinians, it shows significant cracks in the dominance of Israel’s “Palestinian terrorism” narrative among the American youth.

The same poll suggested that only 27 percent support Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a disastrous vote of no confidence that is far removed from the welcome he has enjoyed at the White House and Congress.

How policy may change

As older voters – Israel’s last electoral stronghold – make way for younger voters more sympathetic to the cause of Palestinian rights, the political math will shift towards profound political change. The question is no longer if the US will rethink its special relationship with Israel, but when.

The special relationship with Israel is one of those rare issues for which there is bipartisan support. Changing that would take a long time.

Of course, in the short term, there are some possible changes. If there is a sudden rift between Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump – perhaps even on a personal level – the latter will have the polls to justify a move away from Israel. The clear shift in public opinion would provide him with the political cover that he is listening to the American people. However, such a dramatic change is not likely.

What is more likely is that, under pressure from the public, members of Congress will increasingly start shifting on Israel-Palestine. Those who stubbornly refuse may be challenged by younger, more energetic candidates who rebuff funding by pro-Israel organisations like AIPAC.

The shift in Congress, however, would take a lot of time, not least because there will be stiff resistance to it. Pro-Israel lobby groups regard this as a pivotal moment in US-Israeli history. They will employ their vast resources to eliminate any candidate expressing sympathy for the Palestinians or questioning automatic support for Israel.

Furthermore, other issues, such as the economy and various social ills, will continue to dominate political agendas; foreign policy rarely shapes US elections.

The transition will not be bipartisan in the near term. Republican support for Israel is more consistent. The Democratic establishment has been under mounting pressure from its base since Joe Biden’s presidency. As younger members gain political ascendancy – as exemplified by the spectacular victory of New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic primary – the Democratic leadership will be forced to change tack.

With more pro-Palestinian officials elected into office, especially in Congress, the progressive bloc will grow and intensify the pressure to change policy from within.

This process, however, will not be quick enough to immediately improve the situation in Palestine or even stop the looming ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Relief is more likely to come due to international pressure and developments on the ground rather than a change in US policy.

Nevertheless, in the longer term, lessened support for Israel from Congress or even a US president would mean the Israeli government would have to change its overly aggressive posture in the region and rein in its adventurous militarism. It will likely also be forced to make concessions on the Palestinian question. Whether this would be enough to establish a Palestinian state remains to be seen.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

It was like Orel Hershiser could hear what Dodger fans were screaming at their TV.

Because, as slumping closer Tanner Scott came trotting into a nightmare ninth inning in Baltimore on Saturday night, the club’s color analyst on SportsNet LA immediately tried to offer a rationalization for his entrance.

“You might be asking, why Tanner Scott tonight?” Hershiser said, moments after the SNLA broadcast showed a clip of the left-hander getting walked off the night before, and moments before he’d get walked off again on a bases-loaded single to end Saturday’s disastrous loss to the Orioles.

Well, Hershiser continued, “If the Dodgers are going to go deep into October, and go back-to-back as world champions, the people Dave Roberts is bringing in have to get it right.”

An unsatisfying answer, perhaps. But one that reflects the precarious reality of the Dodgers’ bullpen situation — with the team feeling little choice but to rely on the high-profile relievers this year’s team was built around.

Granted, Saturday’s collapse epitomized just how difficult that faith has been to maintain.

It starts with Scott, the $72-million offseason signing who was supposed to cement the back end of the unit — not require an explanation from team broadcasters upon entering games in key situations.

It’s been compounded by inconsistencies elsewhere, from similarly scuffling offseason signing Kirby Yates; to Blake Treinen and the unreliable form he has shown since returning from an elbow injury, including a meltdown earlier in Saturday’s ninth inning that forced Scott into an unforgiving situation.

Injuries have also hampered the continuity of the bullpen time and again this season. Hard-throwing right-hander Michael Kopech has been limited to 10 appearances because of arm and knee troubles. Left-handed stalwart Alex Vesia has missed the last two weeks with an oblique strain (though he was set to be activated for this week’s homestand). The team’s only notable trade deadline reliever acquisition, Brock Stewart, made just four outings before going down with a shoulder injury. Evan Phillips is already out for the year with Tommy John surgery. It’s unclear if Brusdar Graterol will return from a shoulder procedure in time to pitch at all this year.

All of those names were supposed to make up the core of this year’s relief unit — the high-leverage pieces that the front office decided to invest in, and Roberts expected he’d be able to trust.

Instead, they’ve been the biggest culprits behind the bullpen’s 4.21 ERA on the season (which ranks 19th in the majors) and a spate of recent painful late-game losses that have kept the Dodgers mired in a two-month slump.

Moving forward, it has left Roberts and his club facing a difficult decision: Continue to trust that underperforming crop of supposed lockdown arms, or look for alternatives from less proven options elsewhere?

For now, the former appears to remain their preferred choice.

If the bullpen is to turn things around, they’ve decided, it will require their biggest names to simply start pitching better.

“These are the guys we signed off on, we believe in,” Roberts said Sunday. “Not to say that you’ve got to have blind faith forever. I understand that. But … I’m going to keep giving [opportunities] to them, until I don’t.”

Pitching coach Mark Prior echoed that same message, reiterating that “those are our guys, and we believe in them,” even as the team searches for late-season improvements.

“The results haven’t been there. It hasn’t been good,” Prior added. “[But we have to] move forward with the three weeks we have left in the season and get on a run. Things happen very fast in this game.”

Prior pointed to last season, when the Dodgers faced other — though much less alarming — bullpen questions leading up to the playoffs. At that time, they didn’t have a set closer in the ninth inning. Several key pieces were either hurt or scuffling in the second half.

Treinen, in particular, was one of the bigger uncertainties, after missing two weeks in August with a hip injury that also doubled as a reset amid a midseason slump. Once he returned, however, the right-hander transformed into the Dodgers’ most trusted late-game option. “Next thing you know, he’s the MVP of our team in the playoffs,” Prior said.

The stability he provided also helped the rest of the bullpen, which effectively carried the Dodgers to their World Series title, flourish around him.

“If they see a guy having some success, things just snowball,” Prior said, describing how successes (and failures) can often feel contagious among a bullpen at large.

That’s the kind of dynamic the Dodgers are trying to rediscover again this year.

It’s why Scott (despite his 4.56 ERA and 12 combined blown saves and losing decisions) keeps getting late-game opportunities. And why Treinen (4.26 ERA), Yates (4.71 ERA) and other disappointments in the Dodgers’ beleaguered relief corps have been given continued leash to work to get back to the best version of themselves.

On paper, those are the most veteran, most experienced, and most trustworthy options on this year’s team. They have, as Roberts has repeatedly reiterated of late, the kind of “track record” the club is still willing to bet on. If just a couple of them can figure things out and get on a dominant run, more unit-wide success might follow in their wake.

“When you’re talking about winning 11 games in October, getting there [requires] guys that you can trust in that hot box of moments,” Roberts said.

“[This] is who we have, it’s not like that’s changing,” Prior added. “So we just gotta keep getting there.”

That doesn’t mean the team will endure more struggles forever. The clock is ticking on the Dodgers’ expected leverage group to finally find a way to realize their potential.

On Sunday morning, for example, Roberts said Scott could be shifted out of his ninth-inning role as he tries to iron out command problems that have led him to consistently miss down the middle. Later that day, the manager entrusted a late-game lead to three rookies in Edgardo Henriquez (who escaped a jam but had shaky command), Justin Wrobleski (who struck out five over two scoreless innings in one of his best outings this year) and Jack Dreyer (a steady left-hander this season who now has three saves to go along with his sub-3.00 ERA) to close out a skid-snapping win against the Orioles.

Come the playoffs, there could be another wild card. Two-way star Shohei Ohtani will likely be needed in the starting rotation, but Roberts acknowledged there have been “thoughts about” whether he could factor into some kind of potential ninth-inning role as well.

“I can’t answer that question right now,” Roberts said. “But I think that we’re going to do whatever we feel is the best chance to give us a chance to win. And I know Shohei would be open to whatever. We certainly haven’t made that decision yet, though.”

But before they get there, much will depend on the actual relievers they expected to be able to count on this season. For as ugly as the performances have been to this point, the Dodgers haven’t yet abandoned all hope for a turnaround.

“I live in a world of, what’s the alternative?” Roberts said. “I just don’t feel that Edgardo Henriquez, for example” — who has 17 career major-league innings — “is now the savior.”

“It’s not a knock on Edgardo, because he’s throwing the heck out of the baseball,” Roberts added. “But you look at our ‘pen, there’s a confidence thing right now that [other guys have] got to get over.”

Over the final three weeks of the regular season, the Dodgers feel their best bet is banking on them to do just that.

“Look, it can turn really quick,” Prior said. “This game is so much about feeling confident … Getting, and being able to stack good outings or quality at-bats. When you’re able to start stacking those things, you feel good. And like anything, if you feel good, you feel better about your stuff. You have more confidence. You feel that you can get anybody out in any situation.”

The Dodgers’ top relievers, of course, appear to be a long way from that at the moment.

But “at the core of it,” Prior insisted, even after the frustrations of the bullpen’s continued failures, “we believe in who we have.”

US President Trump has repeatedly changed his position on the Ukraine war, even after vowing to end it within 24 hours of taking office. Eight months later, with ceasefire talks stalled, he and Russian President Putin are pushing for a peace deal that skips a ceasefire — putting them at odds with Kyiv and its allies.

Handy Andy – real name Andy Kane – was a hugely popular member of the Changing Rooms team with viewers. But what has he been up to since he left the show in 2004?

Popular 90s DIY show Changing Rooms was a firm favourite on our screens, but the cast look very different to nowadays.

Viewers of the BBC show tuned in weekly to see the team take on some major home transformations, making the stars of the show household names in the process.

Hosted by Carol Smillie, Changing Rooms drew in a whopping 10 million viewers at its peak on BBC One and created some iconic moments – who can forget when a £6,000 teapot collection was destroyed in one fell swoop by a floating shelf in series 8?

Designers Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen, Linda Barker, and Anna Ryder Richardson were the ones tasked with helping members of the public transform a room in someone else’s house – be it a friend, family member or neighbour. And then to help them make it a reality, the show’s handyman, Handy Andy (Andy Kane) swooped in.

READ MORE: Where is Heartbeat’s Nick Berry and the rest of the cast now? From tragic deaths to co-star romance

DIY expert Andy appeared on the show from 1996-2004 and was a key player in the transformation process. But what has he been up to in the years since?

After the show ended, Andy landed a role on the American version of the programme, named Trading Spaces, and he also presented three shows for UK Style, Room Rival , Garden Rivals and Streetcombers.

READ MORE: Dancing on Ice’s biggest scandals – from headbanger horror to bullying allegations

One of his biggest programmes was Increase Your House Price By Ten Grand, which saw Andy work with a team to increase a house’s value by £10,000 in just three days with a £1,000 budget.

Andy has also appeared on I’m Famous And Frightened, Cirque de Celebrite and The Adam And Joe Show, and he has hosted a number of BBC Primary Geography programmes since 2008. He is happily married to his wife Geraldine and together they have four children.

Andy was a popular member of the team and the chatty Cockney proved to be a big hit with viewers too. While he frequently impressed with his DIY, it didn’t always go to plan, and he later spoke about his most major mishap – when the teapot collection was destroyed.

Designer Linda had commissioned a floating shelf to house them but weighed it down with heavy books, causing the shelf to collapse overnight.

Andy told the Metro: “It went wrong because they put too much weight on it. The shelf was obviously just for show and just the teapots on it would have been fine, but then they started loading up with books at the bottom.

“I did say at the time that books are very heavy but they carried on and you know, it’s one of them things. When it happened, it was really, really awful, everyone felt really bad, but now you just laugh about it. But it was good entertainment, wasn’t it?

“In other episodes of the show they’d mount chairs on the wall or hang chairs from ceilings and as a builder, you’re like ‘really?!’, but that’s interior design for you.”

For filmmaker Scott Mann, three dozen F-bombs had the makings of a million-dollar headache.

When Mann wrapped “Fall,” a 2022 thriller about two women stranded atop a 2,000-foot radio tower, he figured the hard part was over. Shot in the Mojave Desert on a $3-million budget, the film didn’t have money to burn and seemed on course. But Lionsgate wanted a PG-13 rating and, with 35 expletives, “Fall” was headed for an R. Reshoots would cost more than $1 million — far beyond what the production could afford.

In the past, a director might have taken out a second mortgage or thrown themselves at the mercy of the ratings board. Mann instead turned to AI.

A few years earlier, he had been dismayed by how a German dub of his 2015 thriller “Heist” flattened the performances, including a key scene with Robert De Niro, to match stiff, mistranslated dialogue. That frustration led Mann to co-found Flawless, an AI startup aimed at preserving the integrity of an actor’s performance across languages. As a proof of concept, he used the company’s tech to subtly reshape De Niro’s mouth movements and restore the emotional nuance of the original scene.

On “Fall,” Mann applied that same technology to clean up the profanity without reshoots, digitally modifying the actors’ mouths to match PG-13-friendly lines like “freaking” — at a fraction of the cost.

A series on how the AI revolution is reshaping the creative foundations of Hollywood — from storytelling and performance to production, labor and power.

As AI stirs both hype and anxiety in Hollywood, Mann understands why even such subtle digital tweaks can feel like a violation. That tension came to a head during the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, in which AI became the defining flash point in the fight over acting’s future.

“Ours is a rights-based industry,” says Mann, 45, who helped develop a digital rights management platform at Flawless to ensure performers approve any changes to their work. “It’s built on protecting human creativity, the contributions of actors, directors, editors, and if those rights aren’t protected, that value gets lost.”

Mann at his office in Santa Monica.

(Brian Feinzimer / For The Times)

Still, Mann doesn’t see AI as a threat so much as a misunderstood tool — one that, used carefully, can support the artists it’s accused of replacing. Flawless’ DeepEditor, for example, lets directors transfer facial expressions from one take to another, even when the camera angle or lighting changes, helping actors preserve their strongest moments without breaking continuity.

“Plenty of actors I’ve worked with have had that moment where they see what’s possible and realize, ‘Oh my God, this is so much better,’” Mann says. “It frees them up, takes off the pressure and helps them do a better job. Shutting AI out is naive and a way to end up on the wrong side of history. Done right, this will make the industry grow and thrive.”

AI isn’t hovering at the edges of acting anymore — it’s already on soundstages and in editing bays. Studios have used digital tools to de-age Harrison Ford in “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” resurrect Peter Cushing’s Grand Moff Tarkin in “Rogue One” and clone Val Kilmer’s voice in “Top Gun: Maverick” after throat cancer left him unable to speak. The technology has reshaped faces, smoothed dialogue and fast-tracked everything from dubbing to reshoots. And its reach is growing: Studios can now revive long-dead stars, conjure stunt doubles who never get hurt and rewrite performances long after wrap.

But should they?

Actors outside Paramount Studios during a SAG-AFTRA solidarity rally in September 2023.

(Al Seib / For The Times)

As the tools grow more sophisticated, the threat to actors goes beyond creative disruption. In an industry where steady work is already elusive and the middle class of working actors is vanishing, AI raises the prospect of fewer jobs, lower pay and, in a dystopian twist, a future in which your disembodied face and voice might get work without you.

Background actors were among the first to sound the alarm during the 2023 strike, protesting studio proposals to scan them once and reuse their likenesses indefinitely. That scenario is already beginning to unfold: In China, a state-backed initiative will use AI to reimagine 100 kung fu classics, including films starring Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee, through animation and other digital enhancements. Lee’s estate said it was unaware of the project, raising questions about how these actors’ likenesses might be used, decades after filming.

If the soul of acting is a human presence, what remains when even that can be simulated?

“You want to feel breath — you want to feel life,” said actor and director Ethan Hawke during a panel at 2023’s Telluride Film Festival, where strike-era unease over AI was palpable. “When we see a great painting, we feel a human being’s blood, sweat and tears. That’s what we’re all looking for, that connection with the present moment. And AI can’t do that.”

Who’s in control?

Justine Bateman may seem like an unlikely crusader in Hollywood’s fight against AI. Launched to fame as Mallory Keaton on the 1980s sitcom “Family Ties,” she later became a filmmaker and earned a computer science degree from UCLA. Now, as founder of the advocacy group CREDO23, Bateman has become one of the industry’s fiercest voices urging filmmakers to reject AI-generated content and defend the integrity of human-made work. Loosely modeled on Dogme 95, CREDO23 offers a certification of films made without AI, using minimal VFX and union crews. It’s a pledge backed by a council including “Mad Men” creator Matthew Weiner, “The Handmaid’s Tale” director Reed Morano and actor Juliette Lewis.

The 2023 SAG-AFTRA contract set new guardrails: Studios must get actors’ consent to create or use digital replicas of their likenesses, and those replicas can’t generate new performances without a separate deal. Actors must also be compensated and credited when their digital likeness is used.

But to Bateman, a former SAG-AFTRA board member and negotiating committee rep, those protections are little more than sandbags against an inevitable AI flood: hard-won but already straining to keep the technology at bay.

“The allowances in the contract are pretty astounding,” Bateman says by phone, her voice tight with exasperation. “If you can picture the Teamsters allowing self-driving trucks in their contract — that’s on par with what SAG did. If you’re not making sure human roles are played by human actors, I’m not sure what the union is for.”

Justine Bateman, photographed by The Times in 2022.

(Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)

To Bateman, the idea that AI expands access to filmmaking — a central tenet of its utopian sales pitch — is a dangerous myth, one that obscures deeper questions about authorship and the value of creative labor.

“Anyone can make a film — my last two, I shot on an iPhone,” Bateman says. “The idea that AI is ‘democratizing film’ doesn’t even make sense. What it really does is remove the barrier of skill. It lets people pretend they’re filmmakers when they’re not, by prompting software that wouldn’t even function without having stolen a hundred years of film and TV production made by real filmmakers.”

Bateman’s opposition to AI is rooted in a deep distrust of Silicon Valley’s expanding influence over the creative process and a belief that filmmaking should be driven by artists, not algorithms. “The tech bro business completely jumped the shark with generative AI,” she says. “Is it solving plastics in the ocean? Homelessness? L.A. traffic? Not that I’m aware of.”

She scoffs at the supposed efficiencies AI brings to the filmmaking process: “It’s like saying, whatever somebody enjoys — sex or an ice cream sundae — ‘Hey, now you can do it in a quarter of the time.’ OK, but then what do you think life is for?“

To Bateman, an actor’s voice, face, movements or even their choice of costume is not raw material to be reshaped but an expression of authorship. AI, in her view, erases those choices and the intent behind them. “I’m deeply against changing what the actor did,” she says. “It’s not right to have the actor doing things or saying things they didn’t do — or to alter their hair, makeup or clothes in postproduction using AI. The actor knows what they did.”

While Bateman has been public and unwavering in her stance, many actors remain unsure whether to raise their voices. In the wake of the strikes, much of the conversation around AI has moved behind closed doors, leaving those who do speak out feeling at times exposed and alone.

Scarlett Johansson, who lent her smoky, hypnotic voice to the fictional AI in Spike Jonze’s Oscar-winning 2013 film “Her,” now finds herself in a uniquely uncomfortable position: She’s both a symbol of our collective fascination with artificial performance and a real-world example of what’s at stake when that line is crossed. Last year, she accused OpenAI of using a chatbot voice that sounded “eerily similar” to hers, months after she declined to license it. OpenAI denied the claim and pulled the voice, but the incident reignited concern over consent and control.

Johansson has long spoken out against the unauthorized use of her image, including her appearance in deepfake pornography, and has pushed for stronger safeguards against digital impersonation. To date, though, she is one of the few major stars to publicly push back against the creeping mimicry enabled by AI — and she’s frustrated that more haven’t joined her. “There has to be some agreed-upon set of boundaries in order for [AI] to not be detrimental,” she told Vanity Fair in May. “I wish more people in the public eye would support and speak out about that. I don’t know why that’s not the case.”

Lights, camera, replication

Ed Ulbrich, 60, a pioneering visual effects producer and co-founder of Digital Domain, has spent his career helping actors do the impossible, one pixel at a time.

In 2008’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” he led the team of more than 150 artists in building a fully digital version of Brad Pitt’s face so the actor could convincingly age in reverse — a two-year effort that earned Ulbrich and three colleagues an Oscar for visual effects and set a new benchmark for digital performance. (Nearly two decades later, the achievement is still impressive, although some scenes, especially those with Pitt’s aged face composited on a child’s body, now show their digital seams.) For 2010’s “Tron: Legacy,” Ulbrich helped digitally transform Jeff Bridges into his 1982 self using motion capture and CGI.

Working on last year’s “Here” — Robert Zemeckis’ technically daring drama starring Tom Hanks and Robin Wright as a couple whose lives play out across decades in a single New Jersey living room — showed Ulbrich just how far things have come. For someone who jokes he has “real estate in the uncanny valley,” it wasn’t just the AI-enabled realism that floored him. It was the immediacy. On set, AI wasn’t enhancing footage after the fact; it was visually reshaping the performance in real time.

Tom Hanks and Robin Wright in the movie “Here.”

(Sony Pictures Ent.)

“You look up and see 67-year-old Tom Hanks. You look down at the monitor — he’s 20, and it looks better than the best CGI,” Ulbrich says. “In my world, the human face is the holy grail. That is the most complicated thing you can do. And now it’s getting done in near real time before your eyes. The actor can come back and look at the monitor and get new ideas, because they’re seeing a different version of themselves: younger, older, as an alien or whatever.”

This kind of seamless AI-driven alteration marks a new frontier in postproduction. Modern AI systems can now “beautify” actors’ faces, like some would with a Instagram or Zoom filter: smooth out wrinkles, alter skin tone, sharpen jawlines, subtly nudge eye position to better match a desired gaze. What once required painstaking VFX can now be handled by fast, flexible AI tools, often with results invisible to audiences.

Once limited to only big-budget sci-fi and fantasy productions, this digital touch-up capability is expanding into rom-coms, prestige dramas, high-end TV and even some indie films. Dialogue can be rewritten and re-lipped in post. Facial expressions can be smoothed or swapped without reshoots. More and more, viewers may have no way of knowing what’s real and what’s been subtly adjusted.

“Here” was largely rejected by both audiences and critics, with some deeming its digitally de-aged performances more unsettling than moving. But Ulbrich says digitally enhanced performance is already well underway.

Talent agency CAA has built a vault of client scans, a kind of biometric asset library for future productions. Some stars now negotiate contracts that reduce their time on set, skipping hours in the makeup chair or performance-capture gear, knowing AI can fill in the gaps.

“Robert Downey, Brad Pitt, Will Smith — they’ve all been scanned many times,” says Ulbrich, who recently joined the AI-driven media company Moonvalley, which pitches itself as a more ethical, artist-centered player in the space. “If you’ve done a studio tentpole, you’ve been scanned.

“There is a lot of fear around AI and it’s founded,” he adds. “Unless you do something about it, you can just get run over. But there are people out there that are harnessing this. At this point, fighting AI is like fighting against electricity.”

While many in Hollywood wrestle with what AI means for the oldest component of moviemaking, others take a more pragmatic view, treating it as a tool to solve problems and keep productions on track. Jerry Bruckheimer, the powerhouse producer behind “Top Gun,” “Pirates of the Caribbean” and this summer’s “F1,” is among those embracing its utility.

“AI is not going anywhere and it’s only going to get more useful for people in our business,” he said in a recent interview with The Times.

He recalled one such moment during post-production on his new Brad Pitt–led Formula One drama, a logistical feat filmed during actual Formula One races across Europe and the Middle East, with a budget north of $200 million.

“Brad was in the wilds of New Zealand, and we had test screenings coming up,” Bruckheimer says. “We couldn’t get his voice to do some looping, so we used an app that could mimic Brad Pitt. I’m sure the union will come after me if you write that, but it wasn’t used in the movie because he became available.”

While he’s skeptical of AI’s ability to generate truly original ideas — “We’re always going to need writers,” he says — Bruckheimer, whose films have grossed more than $16 billion worldwide, sees AI as a powerful tool for global reach.

“They can take Brad’s voice from the movie and turn it into other languages so it’s actually his voice, rather than another actor,” he says. “If it’s not available yet, it will be.”

The debate over AI in performance flared earlier this year with “The Brutalist,” Brady Corbet’s award-winning drama about a Hungarian architect. After the film’s editor, Dávid Jancsó, revealed that AI voice-cloning software had been used to subtly modify the Hungarian accents of stars Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones, the backlash followed swiftly.

Some critics accused the film of using AI to smooth over performances while presenting itself as handcrafted, a move one viral post derided as trying to “cheap out without soul.” Corbet later clarified that AI was used sparingly, only to adjust vowel sounds, but the decision left some viewers uneasy — even as Brody went on to win the Oscar for lead actor.

If the controversy over “The Brutalist” struck some as a moral crisis, David Cronenberg found the whole thing overblown. Few filmmakers have probed the entanglement of flesh, identity and technology as relentlessly as the director of “Videodrome,” “The Fly” and last year’s “The Shrouds,” so he’s not particularly rattled by the rise of AI-assisted performances.

“All directors have always messed around with actors’ performances — that’s what editing is,” Cronenberg told The Times in April. “Filmmaking isn’t theater. It’s not sacred. We’ve been using versions of this for years. It’s another tool in the toolbox. And it’s not controlling you — you can choose not to use it.”

Long before digital tools, Cronenberg recalls adjusting actor John Lone’s vocal pitch in his 1993 film “M. Butterfly,” in which Lone played a Chinese opera singer and spy who presents as a woman to seduce a French diplomat. The director raised the pitch when the character appeared as a woman and lowered it when he didn’t — a subtle manipulation to reinforce the illusion.

David Cronenberg, photographed at his home in Toronto, Canada, in April.

(Kate Dockeray / For The Times)

Far from alarmed, Cronenberg is intrigued by AI’s creative potential as a way of reshaping authorship itself. With new platforms like OpenAI’s Sora and Google’s Veo 3 now capable of generating increasingly photorealistic clips from simple text prompts, an entire performance could conceivably be conjured from a writer’s keyboard.

“Suddenly you can write a scene — a woman is walking down the street, she looks like this, she’s wearing that, it’s raining, whatever — and AI can create a video for you,” Cronenberg says. “To me, this is all exciting. It absolutely can threaten all kinds of jobs and that has to be dealt with, but every technological advance has done that and we just have to adapt and figure it out.”

Ghosts in the frame

In the Hollywood of the late 1970s, there was no AI to tweak an actor’s face. So when “Star Wars” star Mark Hamill fractured his nose and left cheekbone in a serious car crash between shooting the first and second films, the solution was to tweak the story. The 1980 sequel “The Empire Strikes Back” opened with Luke Skywalker being attacked by a nine-foot-tall snow beast called a wampa on the ice planet Hoth, partly to account for the change in his appearance.

Decades later, when Hamill was invited to return as a younger version of himself in the 2020 Season 2 finale of “The Mandalorian,” the chance to show Luke “at the height of his powers was irresistible,” he says.

But the reality left him feeling oddly detached from the character that made him famous. Hamill shared the role with a younger body double, and digital de-aging tools recreated his face from decades earlier. The character’s voice, meanwhile, was synthesized using Respeecher, a neural network trained on old recordings of Hamill to mimic his speech from the original trilogy era.

“I didn’t have that much dialogue: ‘Are you Luke Skywalker?’ ‘I am,’” Hamill recalled in an interview with The Times earlier this year. “I don’t know what they do when they take it away, in terms of tweaking it and making your voice go up in pitch or whatever.”

When fans speculated online that he hadn’t participated at all, Hamill declined to correct the record.

“My agent said, ‘Do you want me to put out a statement or something?’” Hamill recalls. “I said, ‘Eh, people are going to say what they want to say.’ Maybe if you deny it, they say, ‘See? That proves it — he’s denying it.’”

A digitally de-aged Mark Hamill as the young Luke Skywalker in a 2020 episode of “The Mandalorian.”

(Lucasfilm Ltd.)

When Luke returned again in a 2022 episode of “The Book of Boba Fett,” the process was even more synthetic: Hamill was minimally involved on camera and the character was built almost entirely from digital parts: a de-aged face mapped onto a body double with an AI-generated voice delivering his lines. Hamill was credited and compensated, though the exact terms of the arrangement haven’t been made public.

The visual effect was notably improved from earlier efforts, thanks in part to a viral deepfake artist known as Shamook, whose YouTube video improving the VFX in “The Mandalorian” finale had racked up millions of views. He was soon hired by Industrial Light & Magic — a rare case of fan-made tech critique turning into a studio job.

“In essence, yes, I did participate,” Hamill says.

It’s one thing to be digitally altered while you’re still alive. It’s another to keep performing after you’re gone.

Before his death last year, James Earl Jones — whose resonant baritone helped define Darth Vader for generations — gave Lucasfilm permission to recreate his voice using AI. In a recent collaboration with Disney, Epic Games deployed that digital voice in Fortnite, allowing players to team up with Vader and hear new lines delivered in Jones’ unmistakable tones, scripted by Google’s Gemini AI.

In May, SAG-AFTRA later filed a labor charge, saying the use of Jones’ voice hadn’t been cleared with the union.

Last year’s “Alien: Romulus” sparked similar backlash over the digital resurrection of Ian Holm’s android character Ash nearly a decade after Holm’s death. Reconstructed using a blend of AI and archival footage, the scenes were slammed by some fans as a form of “digital necromancy.” For the film’s home video release, director Fede Álvarez quietly issued an alternate cut that relied more heavily on practical effects, including an animatronic head modeled from a preexisting cast of Holm’s face.

For Hollywood, AI allows nostalgia to become a renewable resource, endlessly reprocessed and resold. Familiar faces can be altered, repurposed and inserted into entirely new stories. The audience never has to say goodbye and the industry never has to take the risk of introducing someone new.

Hamill, for his part, seems ready to let go of Luke. After his final arc in 2017’s “The Last Jedi,” he says he feels a sense of closure.

“I don’t know the full impact AI will have but I find it very ominous,“ he says. “I’m fine. I had my time. Now the spotlight should be on the current and future actors and I hope they enjoy it as much as I did.”

Actors, not avatars

Actor and AI startup Wonder Dynamics co-founder Tye Sheridan, photographed by The Times in 2021.

(Michael Nagle / For The Times)

Actor Tye Sheridan knows how dark an AI future could get. After all, he starred in Steven Spielberg’s 2018 “Ready Player One,” a sci-fi thriller set inside a corporate-controlled world of digital avatars. But Sheridan isn’t trying to escape into that world — he’s trying to shape the one ahead.

With VFX supervisor Nikola Todorovic, Sheridan co-founded Wonder Dynamics in 2017 to explore how AI can expand what’s possible on screen. Their platform uses AI to insert digital characters into live-action scenes without green screens or motion-capture suits, making high-end VFX more accessible to low-budget filmmakers. Backed by Spielberg and “Avengers” co-director Joe Russo, Wonder Dynamics was acquired last year by Autodesk, the software firm behind many animation and design tools.

“Since the advent of the camera, technology has been pushing this industry forward,” Sheridan, 28, says on a video call. “AI is just another part of that path. It can make filmmaking more accessible, help discover new voices. Maybe the next James Cameron will find their way into the industry through some AI avenue. I think that’s really exciting.”

With production costs spiraling, Todorovic sees AI as a way to lower the barrier to entry and make riskier, more ambitious projects possible. “We really see AI going in that direction, where you can get those A24-grounded stories with Marvel visuals,” he says. “That’s what younger audiences are hungry for.”

The shift, Todorovic argues, could lead to more films overall and more opportunities for actors. “Maybe instead of 10,000 people making five movies, it’ll be 1,000 people making 50,” he says.

Still, Todorovic sees a threshold approaching, one where synthetic actors could, in theory, carry a film. “I do think technically it is going to get solved,” Todorovic says. “But the question remains — is that what we really want? Do we really want the top five movies of the year to star humans who don’t exist? I sure hope not.”

For him, the boundary isn’t just about realism. It’s about human truth.

“You can’t prompt a performance,” he says. “You can’t explain certain movements of the body and it’s very hard to describe emotions. Acting is all about reacting. That’s why when you make a movie, you do five takes — or 40. Because it’s hard to communicate.”

Sheridan, who has appeared in the “X-Men” franchise as well as smaller dramas like “The Card Counter” and “The Tender Bar,” understands that instinctively and personally. “I started acting in films when I was 11 years old,” he says. “I wouldn’t ever want to build something that put me out of a job. That’s the fun part — performing, exploring, discovering the nuances. That’s why we fall in love with certain artists: their unique sensibility, the way they do what no one else can.”

He knows that may sound contradictory coming from the co-founder of an AI company. That’s exactly why he believes it’s critical that artists, not Silicon Valley CEOs, are the ones shaping how the technology is used.

“We should be skeptical of AI and its bad uses,” he says. “It’s a tool that can be used for good or bad. How are we going to apply it to create more access and opportunity in this industry and have more voices heard? We’re focused on keeping the artist as an essential part of the process, not replacing them.”

For now, Sheridan lives inside that paradox, navigating a technology that could both elevate and imperil the stories he cares most about.

His next acting gig? “The Housewife,” a psychological drama co-starring Naomi Watts and Michael Imperioli, in which he plays a 1960s New York Times reporter investigating a suspected Nazi hiding in Queens. No AI. No doubles. Just people pretending to be other people the old way, while it lasts.

ONE popular London swim spot is getting a huge makeover with new facilities and green spaces.

The West Reservoir Centre in Stoke Newington that’s been open to swimmers for 20 years is getting an upgrade.

4

4

Found in north London the West Reservoir Centre sees thousands descend on the reservoir for open-water swimming, sailing and kayaking courses.

While the reservoir is about to undergo a transformation, the actual water isn’t – because it’s a reservoir.

Instead, the surrounding area will become much more accessible and greener, too.

The goal is to create “a more welcoming destination for both local residents and visitors.”

Designs reveal a new cafe, reception area, grass edge and two accessible entrances.

Other additions include modern changing rooms and cycle parking spaces to encourage biking to the reservoir.

There will be new accessible bridges built over the north and south parts of New River.

Plus, a new walkway on the east side of the reservoir will be created.

The website states that the centre will remain open throughout the project “for the thousands of people who visit the site each week for open water swimming and water sports.”

The work is expected to be completed by summer 2026 at a cost of close to £3.5 million.

4

It’s all being funded by the Greater London Authority as an effort to improve community spaces and create a better space for the people of Stoke Newington.

Caroline Woodley, Hackney mayor, said that the changes are “about so much more than bricks and mortar”.

She continued to describe the centre as “one of Hackney’s hidden gems, a place where communities connect with nature, get active and enjoy some of the borough’s most stunning open-water views.”

The reservoir has a number of swim courses ranging from a 100m warm up lap to a 300m loop.

As it’s an outdoor course, they are dependent on weather conditions and water temperature.

At West Reservoir Centre, the cost for a single open water swim is £10 for non-members and £7.70 for Pay As You Go members.

Another popular lido is Brockwell which the AA revealed to be the best in the country.

The south-west London lido features a 1930s art deco, Grade II listed building, a large 50m pool and even it’s own cafe.

Anyone not keen on swimming can visit the sauna, and there are plenty of spots to sunbathe too.

Plus, I’ve found the little-known lidos in the UK to visit ahead of 33C weather – there are no queues and some are even free.

All the lidos in the UK mapped – with water slides, cocktail bars and some are even free to enter.

4

Dan Keeler, the new captain of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, called up his football coaches from his days at Sherman Oaks Notre Dame High earlier this week, along with his English teacher, to give them a salute for the impact they made on a teenager now in charge of one of the Navy’s most powerful ships.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Capt. Dan Keeler recognizes his Sherman Oaks Notre Dame teaches and coaches during a changing of command ceremony for the USS Abraham Lincoln.

The speech by Keeler on Wednesday in Coronado at a changing of the command ceremony offered the real reason coaches coach and teachers teach — to make a difference in a student’s life.

“I learned more about hard work, grit, determination and how to handle pain, honestly, from this group,” he said.

He recalled when Notre Dame coach Kevin Rooney gave him a recommendation letter for the Naval Academy:
“Coach Rooney, when you handed me the letter, you said, ‘I think you’re going to be good at this,’ and you were right.”

Keeler added, “There were plenty of championships, but I don’t think that’s how these people measure success. I was a very mediocre backup quarterback and defensive back. If I was playing in a football game, we were winning by a lot.

“Those metrics of winning and losing weren’t the only things that mattered. They were important. These educators took all the time to get the best out of their students and I was one of them. They saw something in me and chose to make a positive impact, and I am forever grateful.”

Dispatches from northern China, Jia Zhangke’s movies constitute their own cinematic universe. Repeatedly returning to themes of globalization and alienation, the 55-year-old director has meticulously chronicled his country’s uneasy plunge into the 21st century as rampant industrialization risks deadening those left behind.

But his latest drama, “Caught by the Tides,” which opens at the Frida Cinema today, presents a bold, reflexive remix of his preoccupations. Drawing from nearly 25 years of footage, including images from his most acclaimed films, Jia has crafted a poignant new story with an assist from fragments of old tales. He has always been interested in how the weight of time bears down on his characters — now his actors age in front of our eyes.

When “Caught by the Tides” premiered at last year’s Cannes Film Festival, critics leaned on a handy, if somewhat inaccurate, comparison to describe Jia’s achievement: “Boyhood,” which followed a young actor over the course of 12 years, a new segment of the picture shot annually. But Richard Linklater preplanned his magnum opus. Jia, on the other hand, approached his film more accidentally, using the pandemic shutdown as an excuse to revisit his own archives.

“It struck me that the footage had no linear, cause-and-effect pattern,” Jia explained in a director’s statement. “Instead, there was a more complex relationship, not unlike something from quantum physics, in which the direction of life is influenced and ultimately determined by variable factors that are hard to pinpoint.”

The result is a story in three chapters, each one subtly building emotionally from the last. In the first, it is 2001, as Qiaoqiao (Zhao Tao) lives in Datong, where she dates Bin (Li Zhubin). Early on, Qiaoqiao gleefully sings with friends, but it will be the last time we hear her voice. It’s a testament to Zhao’s arresting performance that many viewers may not notice her silence. She’s so present even without speaking, her alert eyes taking in everything, her understated reactions expressing plenty.

Young and with her whole life ahead of her, Qiaoqiao longs to be a singer, but her future is short-circuited by Bin’s text announcing that he’s leaving to seek better financial opportunities elsewhere. He promises to send word once he’s established himself, but we suspect she may never see this restless, callous schemer again. Not long after, Bin ghosts Qiaoqiao, prompting her to journey after him.

“Caught by the Tides” richly rewards viewers familiar with Jia’s filmography with scenes and outtakes from his earlier movies. Zhao, who in real life married Jia more than a decade ago, has been a highlight of his movies starting with his 2000 breakthrough “Platform,” and so when we see Qiaoqiao at the start of “Caught by the Tides,” we’re actually watching footage shot around that time. (Jia’s 2002 drama “Unknown Pleasures” starred Zhao as a budding singer named Qiaoqiao. Li also appeared in “Unknown Pleasures,” as well as subsequent Jia pictures.)

But the uninitiated shouldn’t feel intimidated to begin their Jia immersion here. Those new to his work will easily discern the film’s older footage, some of it captured on grainy DV cameras, while newer material boasts the elegant, widescreen compositions that have become his specialty. “Caught by the Tides” serves as a handy primer on Jia’s fascination with China’s political, cultural and economic evolution, amplifying those dependable themes with the benefit of working across a larger canvas of a quarter-century.

Still, by the time Qiaoqiao traverses the Yangtze River near the Three Gorges Dam — a controversial construction project that imperiled local small towns and provided the backdrop for Jia’s 2006 film “Still Life” — the director’s fans may feel a bittersweet sense of déjà vu. We have been here before, reminded of his earlier characters who similarly struggled to find love and purpose.

The film’s second chapter, which takes place during 2006, highlights Qiaoqiao’s romantic despair and, separately, Bin’s growing desperation to make a name for himself. (This isn’t the first Jia drama in which characters dabble in criminal activity.) By the time we arrive at the finale, set during the age of COVID anxiety, their inevitable reunion results in a moving resolution, one that suggests the ebb and flow of desire but, also, the passage of time’s inexorable erosion of individuals and nations.

Indeed, it’s not just Zhao and Li who look different by the end of “Caught by the Tides” but Shanxi Province itself — now a place of modern supermarkets, sculpted walkways and robots. Unchecked technological advancement is no longer a distant threat to China but a clear and present danger, dispassionately gobbling up communities, jobs and Qiaoqiao’s and Bin’s dreams. When these two former lovers see each other again, a lifetime having passed on screen, they don’t need words. In this beautiful summation work, Jia has said it all.

College sports leaders and athletes were in limbo for months while waiting for a House settlement to be approved. An agreement would create clarity, better supporting college conferences and their respective universities that had been blindly preparing for the next academic year — unsure which name, image and likeness (NIL) rules they’d be playing by.

Late Friday, structure and stability arrived as the House settlement became approved and official.

“The decision on Friday is a significant step forward toward building long-term stability for college sports while protecting the system from bad actors seeking to exploit confusion and uncertainty,” Southeastern Conference commissioner Greg Sankey said during a news conference Monday morning that included commissioners of the Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast and the Pac 12 conferences.

The House settlement has set the stage for revenue-sharing between universities and their athletes. Claudia Wilken, the presiding judge of California’s Northern District, accepted the final proposal Friday between the NCAA and the plaintiffs, current and former athletes seeking financial compensation for NIL-related backpay.

The NCAA will pay close to $2.8 billion to former athletes — as many as 389,700 athletes who played between June 15, 2016, to Sept. 15, 2024 — across a 10-year period and will also implement a 10-year revenue sharing model that will allow universities to pay current athletes up to $20.5 million per year.

According to the settlement, the total is “22% of the Power Five schools’ average athletic revenues each year” and the revenue-sharing cap will incrementally increase every year.

Mark Wildblood, the founder of Hear Our Voice – the choir made up of people impacted by the Post Office scandal – says the initiative has been ‘therapeutic’ after a battle with depression.

Hear Our Voice, the choir made up of people affected by the Post Office scandal which placed seventh in the recent series of Britain’s Got Talent, are releasing a new charity single alongside band Will & The People.

The single, Falling Down, is a rendition of the song they performed in their audition for Britain’s Got Talent. And choir founder Mark Wildblood says the initiative has been ‘life changing’ for him, admitting the talent show stint has made a significant impact on his mental health.

“I personally have found it very therapeutic,” said Mark. “I was on antidepressants prescribed by my doctor for a long long time and I spoke to them very early this year and I said, ‘Look [the choir] is really starting to make me feel good and I wouldn’t mind trying to go without [the antidepressants].

“So, at the recommendation of doctors I was told it’s ok to give it a go and I haven’t been back on them since,” he says of the choir’s impact.

Continuing that it has given him ‘purpose’ following dark days, Mark shared, “It’s not difficult to get caught up in dwelling on all of the negatives. So, to be surrounded by the same people that you talk to about it every day and that are seeing the positives as well, I think we’ve done a really really positive thing and a lot of that is thanks to BGT.”

While Mark says the choir has meant he’s managed to let go of ‘anger’ he was holding onto against the post office, he confirms that the ‘concern’ remains. “My concern for the procedure is not eliminated. We still have to make sure that we get closure and closure can only come with compensation.”

Mark was a sub-postmaster at Upton Post Office before he was suspended from the role as one of the thousands of people impacted by the Post Office scandal. The scandal saw the wrongful prosecution of sub-postmasters and postmistresses by the Post Office, who accused them of theft, fraud, and false accounting due to faulty data from the Horizon IT system used by the company.

He founded the choir in May 2024, inviting others impacted by the scandal to take part and raise money for the cause, alongside awareness. As the former tour manager for Will and the People, Mark then enlisted lead singer Will Rendle to get involved as he fronted the act on Britain’s Got Talent.

And detailing how the choir has become a family dynamic, Mark said, “W e always say to each other that we have become family now. The choir is spread out throughout the country and so BGT has given us the opportunity to actually meet five times in a very short space of time and be together.”

Many of the victims are still awaiting compensation from the Post Office, with Mark admitting that despite the success of their campaigning and the recent TV series; Mr Bates vs The Post Office, there’s still a long way to go.

It comes as Simon Recaldin, a Post Office boss who has been backing compensation for the scandal victims, has left his position in the company. Simon is thought to have opted for voluntary redundancy, a move which comes amid the increased pressure on the company to pay victims. Previously, the government announced that those who have had convictions overturned are eligible for £600,000, with hundreds still waiting for the compensation.

“Scandals like these have a commonality where the bureaucracy of closure takes so long that many people pass away by the time that the situations are resolved – I just hope that we don’t get into that situation,” says Mark of those yet to be paid. “We’ve already lost a lot of people in the Post Office scandal and we can’t afford to lose more without getting a speed up, so I would say to those in power, please change the system. It’ll be better for everyone all round and cost a lot less money if they just do it now as it should be,” pleaded Mark.

With fellow choir member Maria Lockwood joking that the unit would be keen to front the Glastonbury stage this summer, Mark says he isn’t opposed to the idea. “We wouldn’t say no to anything where we had the opportunity to get together in person again and Glastonbury would be amazing, that would be phenomenal.”

Falling Down, the single by Hear Our Voice choir and Will and The People, is available on all platforms from tomorrow, 10 June. 100% of profits after costs from the single are going to the Horizon Scandal Fund and Lost Chances—two organisations supporting victims and their families.

ASEAN nations have been closely observing the trajectory of US-China relations and have expressed their apprehensions vis-à-vis the uncertainty arising out of Trump tariffs. Leaders of Singapore and Malaysia have been particularly vocal in expressing their apprehensions.

While speaking at the opening of the 46th ASEAN Summit held at Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian PM, Anwar Ibrahim, referred to the imposition of tariffs by US President Donald Trump. Said the Malaysian PM:

‘Indeed, a transition in the geopolitical order is underway, and the global trading system is under further strain with the recent imposition of US unilateral tariffs,’

How ASEAN countries have benefited from the China+1 strategy

Here it would be pertinent to point out that ASEAN nations have also benefitted from the China+1 strategy of Western companies. Through this strategy, Western companies have been keen to reduce their dependence upon China and have been shifting to several ASEAN countries. Companies have moved from China not just to Vietnam but to other ASEAN nations like Indonesia and Malaysia as well.

Impact of China-US thaw on ASEAN

While many would have thought that ASEAN countries would heave a sigh of relief after the China-US agreement signed in Geneva, via which the US reduced tariffs against China from 145 percent to 30 percent. There has been a mixed reaction to the same, given the possibility of companies redrawing their China+1 plans.

Malaysia’s interest in BRICS+

Another important impact of Trump’s policies has been ASEAN countries seeking entry into multilateral organizations. Indonesia entered BRICS as a member in January 2025.

Malaysia, which entered BRICS as a partner country in October 2024, has also applied for full membership. Two other ASEAN countries, Vietnam and Thailand, also entered BRICS.

Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan, while commenting on the ASEAN nation’s interest in joining BRICS:

‘Malaysia’s desire to join BRICS represents its effort to uphold policies and identity as an independent and neutral country, striking a balance with great powers and opening up new business and investment opportunities,’

Malaysia shares close economic ties with China as well as the US and the EU. Malaysia’s bilateral trade with China in 2024 exceeded $200 billion ($212.04 billion). The ASEAN nation’s trade with the US was estimated at $80.2 billion in 2024.

The Malaysian PM, Anwar Ibrahim, had earlier proposed an ‘Asian Monetary Fund’ as an alternative to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In recent years, Malaysia has been pushing for “de-dollarization,” or trade in non-dollar currencies, with several countries.

Anwar Ibrahim’s Russia visit and discussion of BRICS+

Apart from several other bilateral issues, the role of Malaysia in BRICS+ was also discussed during the recent meeting between Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim and Russian President Vladimir Putin during the former’s Russia visit. The Malaysian PM thanked Putin for his role in facilitating Malaysia’s entry into BRICS+. The Russian president, on his part, welcomed the entry of Malaysia and other ASEAN nations as partner countries into BRICS+ during Russia’s chairmanship of BRICS+ in 2024.

During the meeting of Australian PM Anthony Albanese and Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto during the former’s Indonesia visit, one of the issues that was discussed was Indonesia’s entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and OECD. The CPTPP—earlier the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—was initially conceived by former US President Barack Obama. During US President Donald Trump’s earlier presidency, the US had pulled out of TPP. While the organization did face a setback after the US exit from the CPTPP — members like Japan and Australia, which are wary of China’s growing clout in the Indo-Pacific, have been playing a key role in giving a push to economic linkages. Two other ASEAN countries—Malaysia and Vietnam—are already members of the CPTPP.

The Indonesian president thanked Australia for its support for Indonesian into the CPTPP.

The Australian PM, while commenting on his support for Indonesia’s entry into CPTPP:

‘I assure you, Mr. President, of Australia’s support for your joining the OECD as well as your accession to the CPTPP.’

The Australian PM also reiterated Indonesia’s strategic importance in the context of the Indo-Pacific.

Indonesia’s important role on the global stage

Indonesia has robust ties with both China and the US and seeks to use multilateral platforms for further enhancing its clout, as several middle powers have done in recent years. Indonesia has sought to present itself as an important voice of the Global South and as an important link between the G7 and G20.

ASEAN-China-GCC

On the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit, the first ASEAN-China-GCC Summit was held for the first time. The Malaysian PM dubbed this as extraordinary. Anwar Ibrahim also said:

‘I am confident that ASEAN, the GCC, and China can draw upon our unique attributes and shape a future that is more connected, more resilient, and more prosperous.’

Conclusion

In conclusion, the interest of countries like Malaysia and Indonesia in entering multilateral organizations is driven by the changing geopolitical situation in ASEAN and beyond. These nations need to be deft and nimble and can not afford to have a zero-sum approach towards the same. The recent ASEAN Summit is a strong illustration of how ASEAN member states are seeking to diversify their relationships by seeking entry into important multilateral blocs. Apart from this, one point that is evident from the recent ASEAN summit was that ASEAN as a grouping is also seeking to strengthen ties with groups like the GCC.

Hi, and welcome to another edition of Prep Rally. Whether you’ve been paying attention or not, high school football is changing. Let’s discuss.

Dealing with changes

Corona Centennial football coach Matt Logan.

(Jeremiah Soifer )

Rolling your eyes has been the theme if you follow college football and high school football. Changes keep happening because rules are in flux regarding name, image and likeness. Transfer numbers keep growing. Agents are picking up clients who are teenagers. Parents are examining options. Coaches are adjusting on the fly.

It’s the best of times and the worst of times. Many believe things will settle when court cases are finalized. Others believe amateur football has been changed forever.

Here’s a look at some of the issues, good and bad, that are affecting the high school football world.

Baseball

El Camino Real pitcher Devin Gonor celebrates after completing three-hit shutout over Venice on Saturday in a 2-0 win in the City Section Open Division final at Dodger Stadium.

(Craig Weston)

Devin Gonor of El Camino Real proved Saturday at Dodger Stadium that trusting the process still works. He played on the freshman team, then the junior varsity team for two years. He waited his turn, made his varsity debut last season as a junior and this season is 11-1 and pitched a three-hit shutout in a 2-0 win over Venice to give El Camino Real its 10th City Section Open Division title. Here’s a look at how the Royals did it.

Carson players celebrate after a 3-1 win over Banning in the City Section Division I final at Dodger Stadium.

(Craig Weston)

Carson won its first ever City Section title in baseball by taking the Division I crown with a 3-1 comeback win over rival Banning at Dodger Stadium. Here’s the report.

Crespi players launch a victory celebration in the ninth inning of a 3-2 win over Mira Costa.

(Craig Weston)

The final week of the Southern Section season begins Tuesday with semifinals in Division 1 featuring Corona at St. John Bosco and Crespi at Santa Margarita. Here’s a report on the quarterfinals that saw four close games.

Seth Hernandez of Corona celebrates after hitting the first of his two three-run home runs.

(Nick Koza)

It also was the week Seth Hernandez of Corona hit two three-run home runs and struck out 10 in an impressive playoff performance. He’ll pitch Tuesday. Here’s a report. And Venice’s Canon King went five for five in a semifinal win over Sylmar. Here’s the report.

Here’s the complete Tuesday schedule.

Softball

El Modena players greet Kaitlyn Galasso after her first-inning home run against Sherman Oaks Notre Dame.

(Craig Weston)

It will be El Modena playing Norco for the Southern Section Division 1 softball championship this weekend in Irvine.

El Modena came through earlier in the week with a comeback semifinal win over Sherman Oaks Notre Dame. Here’s the report.

On Saturday, Norco defeated Ayala and El Modena knocked off Temescal Canyon to reach the final in a season where hitters have had the advantage over pitchers. Here’s the report.

The City Section has its semifinals Wednesday with Granada Hills hosting Venice and San Pedro hosting Carson. The championship game will be played Saturday at Cal State Northridge.

Track

Birmingham’s Antrell Harris (center) runs stride for stride with Granada Hills’ Justin Hart, left, in the boys 200-meter final at the City Section Track and Field Championships.

(Steve Galluzzo / For The Times)

Birmingham football standout Antrell Harris was one of the stars at the City Section track and field championships, winning the 100 and 200. He’s headed this weekend to compete in the state championships at Buchanan High in Clovis. The weather report is for temperatures in the triple digits.

Here’s a report from the City championships.

The Southern Section held its Masters Meet, and RJ Sermons of Rancho Cucamonga was the top qualifier in the 200 and has one more week of high school competition left before he heads off to play football at USC. Here’s the report.

Golf

Joseph Wong of Granada Hills won the City Section individual golf title.

(Steve Galluzzo)

Joseph Wong of Granada Hills won the City Section golf championship. Here’s the report.

Grant Leary of Crespi won the Southern Section individual golf championship with a 66 for a one-stroke victory. Here’s a roundup of Southern Section team champions. Here’s a look at Leary.

Volleyball

Mira Costa has qualified from Southern California to compete in the first state championship in boys volleyball Saturday at Fresno City College. The Mustangs will face Archbishop Mitty from San Jose.

Here’s the compete schedule of state championship matchups and results from regional finals.

Notes . . .

Catcher Trent Grindlinger of Huntington Beach has changed his commitment from Mississippi State to Tennessee. . . .

Former Bishop Amat football coach Steve Hagerty will become athletic director at West Covina. . . .

Ethan Damato is leaving Laguna Beach to become girls water polo coach at JSerra. . . .

Connor Ohl, a junior at Newport Harbor, has committed to Stanford for water polo. . . .

Oliver Muller is the new boys soccer coach at Oaks Christian. . . .

YULA and Shalhevet, two schools that pulled out of the Southern Section baseball playoffs to participate in a Jewish tournament in Ohio, have been placed on probation and banned from next year’s playoffs for violating Southern Section rules about outside participation during the season. Here’s an opinion piece on how the decision by the two schools will hurt coaches and athletes. . . .

Former Chatsworth football coach Marvin Street has accepted a teaching position at El Camino Real and will become the junior varsity head coach. . . .

Loyola running back Sean Morris has committed to Northwestern. . . .

Kevin Reynolds, the basketball coach at Villa Park for 30 years, died Friday morning, the school announced. He was 59. He had been diagnosed with cancer. His teams won 634 games in his coaching career. . . .

John Quick, who was a longtime basketball coach in the South Bay, has died. . . .

Loyola’s James Dell’Amico has committed to Pepperdine baseball. . . .

Former Tesoro football coach Matt Poston is the new athletic director at San Clemente. . . .

The CIF state championships in tennis will be held Saturday in Fresno. Irvine University has qualified. …

Darius Spates is the new athletic director at Verbum Dei. He’s a 2012 graduate.

From the archives: Pete Crow-Armstrong

Drew Bowser (left) won the home run derby and MVP honors at the Perfect Game All-American Classic and Harvard-Westlake teammate Pete Crow-Armstrong also played in the game.

(Eric Sondheimer / Los Angeles Times)

Harvard-Westlake has produced some outstanding pitchers who went on to the major leagues, but Pete Crow-Armstrong of the Chicago Cubs is the Wolverines’ first breakthrough every day player. As a center fielder with electric speed, he has come into his own this season to become an All-Star candidate.

He used to be a teammate of Drew Bowser, who went to Stanford instead of signing out of high school and is now working his way up in the minors.

Crow-Armstrong entered last week hitting .290 with 12 home runs. He hit a two-run home run Friday against former Sherman Oaks Notre Dame pitcher Hunter Greene of the Reds.

His senior year got cut short in 2020 because of the pandemic. Here’s an interview with Crow-Armtrong from that year and how he kept his focus on the future.

Here’s a story from 2019 on how he had become a hitting machine.

Recommendations

From the Washington Post, a story on what a rowing coxswain does.

From the Los Angeles Times, a story on UC Irvine baseball coach Ben Orloff, a Simi Valley High graduate.

From the Los Angeles Times, a story on the new Compton High campus opening this fall with fantastic athletic facilities.

Tweets you might have missed

Until next time….

Have a question, comment or something you’d like to see in a future Prep Rally newsletter? Email me at [email protected], and follow me on Twitter at @latsondheimer.

Did you get this newsletter forwarded to you? To sign up and get it in your inbox, click here.

In the context of emerging new world, key global powers are thumbing up their strategic agendas, seriously evaluating their approaches in taking positions on diverse issues including security, trade and economics with implications for and impact on developing countries. Notwithstanding, Africa has seemingly become the center of the geopolitics, and the United States tariffs China’s trade while Russia attempts to assert its control over Ukraine’s ambitions to join North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO].

In early May 2025, MD Africa editor Kester Kenn Klomegah had the chance to talk with Professor Arnold Boateng over a number questions connecting evolutionary geopolitical process and its implications and likely impact on shaping world’s landscape. Professor Arnold Boateng is an Entrepreneur, Consultant, Speaker and Author. [Books: Dreams of Our Youth: The African Youth Question: Ananse Verses: Foundations for Life…Available from Amazon & Kindle Store].  Here are the interview excerpts:

Which global power is emerging and could, in the near future, be recognized as the super power?

Professor Arnold Boateng: In terms of Security Russia is already a superpower. It has a much [official records] ICBMs and nuclear weapons as the United States. On the economic front, China is more likely to take over. It has the ambition and intent. By purchasing power parity, it surpassed the United States a year ago or two ago.

Russia on the other seems to be more interested in dethroning the United States to put an end to America’s unilateralism, exceptionalism and the chaos in Eastern Europe, the Pacific and Latin America. Recently, Robert Gates was quoted as saying; “The United States is  the most destabilizing force on earth.”

China has a long way though. The final chip for a really superpower is to have your currency as “reserve currency.” China is a long way from that but within reach in a couple of years.

Would China want to be a superpower having seen what unchecked power has altered American foreign policy and excesses?

AB: Global majority is seriously betting on China. And my bet is on China too. But this does not rule out Russia if it could have the ambition. China should learn from the errors of the United States. It should acknowledge that one leader may sit on the throne but he does not rule alone. If Beijing is willing to have a multipolar world, then as they say;” China would have the Mandate of Heaven to lead and NOT rule.

Does it mean power is steadily moving from the northern hemisphere to South-South coalition?

AB: Power has already shifted. It did when Russia and China won Eurasia. We are merely waiting to see the reality play out in the open. Europe is deindustrialising. Their manufacturing sector has slowed due to high energy cost among other factors.

On security front, its benefactor has been the United States through NATO. With Trump’s policy of America first Europe has seen the writing on the wall. Resources for Europe’s industrial drive have largely come from the south. Nigerien uranium power 70% of France’s energy needs. Cobalt, gold, and other minerals driving their tech and general industrial push have come from the south.

The South-South coalition is on the rose. First, they have the raw materials and energy resources. They have a Highly educated and skill workforce in STEM. They have a youthful population and fast moving economies.

Apparently is it rather West vs. East?

AB: It should be the East. The world, especially Africa, has seen the enough to choose the East over the West. The West’s colonial project set Africa back for more than a century. We have endured their economic hitmen, wars and falsification of African history. Everywhere they have been, had been destabilized. In India, during the colonial project, opium wars in China; Libya, Iraq and regime change in Latin America and all over the world.

In a context of this inevitable evolutionary process, how can describe Africa’s position in the shifting power dynamics?

AB: For now Africa is divided. Africa looks either confuse or has failed to read the shifting power centres.

Africa is central to China’s rise and maintaining their position. Without DRC cobalt, the electronic industry and new tech economies could  not be sustained.

Africa is the King who does not know who he is. 

Can we conclude that China is the leading economic power? What makes Africa’s economic position uncertain in sharing global power?

AB: China controls more 85% of global supply chain. It is in the lead but it cannot get to the top alone. It lacked historical prestige. Much of its 5,000 year history it has been a closed system especially after the Ming took over from the Yuan Dynasty. It opened up under British Imperial project and closed again until President Nixon opened it up. Then Tiananmen happened.

The world is not seeking for another Superpower again considering the excesses of the United States around the globe when the Soviet Union declined in the 1990s. We are looking for a round table leadership. Africa is divided. We lack a coherent continent wide vision. Clearly, without sounding disrespectful, it looks like Africa does not know what is going on. We are oblivious to the shifting centres of power. African must stand together. We must have a common BRICS policy. A common China policy and assert good governance; regional industrial policy; common resource extraction and contracts policy. Common intelligence and security infrastructure among other critical systems necessary for being part of the shapers of the emerging global order.