Edison International Chief Executive Pedro Pizarro said Wednesday that the utility expects the first Eaton fire victims who have agreed not to sue the utility to get their settlement offers later this month.
In an interview, Pizarro said that the utility decided to create the program to pay victims before the fire investigation was complete to get money to them more quickly and because it has become more apparent that the company’s equipment ignited the inferno that killed 19 people.
“There is no other clear probable cause at this point,” he said.
More than 6,000 homes and other properties were destroyed in the Jan. 7 fire that started under an Edison transmission tower in Eaton Canyon. The flames damaged an additional 700 to 800 homes, according to Edison.
Those homes, as well as more than 11,000 others that were damaged by smoke and ash, are eligible for compensation under Edison’s plan. To receive the money, the victims must agree not to sue Edison for the fire.
So far 580 people have applied for compensation, Pizarro said.
He said that if the person accepts the company’s offer, they would be paid within 30 days. “We’ve staffed it to move very quickly.” he said.
Pizarro said the utility is expecting to swiftly be reimbursed for the amounts it pays to victims by a state wildfire fund that Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers created to keep utilities from bankruptcy if their equipment sparks a catastrophic fire.
The first $1 billion in damage costs will be covered by an insurance policy paid for by the utility’s electric customers.
In April, Pizarro said that a leading theory of the fire’s cause was that a century-old transmission line, not used since 1971, reenergized through a process called induction and sparked the fire.
Induction is when magnetic fields created by a nearby live line cause a dormant line to electrify. The unused line runs parallel to other energized high-voltage transmission wires running through Eaton Canyon.
Asked why Edison did not turn off those transmission lines on Jan. 7, Pizarro said in the interview that the company’s protocol at the time, which analyzes wind speed and other risk factors, did not call for a preventive shutoff.
He said the Los Angeles County Fire department and Cal Fire are continuing their investigation into the official cause of the fire.
“We’ve given them everything they’ve asked for,” he said.
At the same time, he said, Edison and lawyers for victims who have filed lawsuits are working jointly on a separate investigation that is gathering detailed information on the fire’s cause.
Pizarro said that he and the company have pledged to be transparent about details of the fire’s cause.
“As significant material things come out we will make that known,” he said.
“I need to go to the supermarket in Pasadena or Altadena and be able to look people in the eye,” Pizarro said. “We want to do the right thing for our community.”
Lukewarm performances at the box office from the likes of “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Roses” and “Freakier Friday” dented Walt Disney Co.’s entertainment business for its fiscal fourth quarter, the company reported Thursday.
The Burbank media and entertainment company reported $10.2 billion in revenue for its entertainment segment for the three-month period that ended Sept. 27, down 6% compared with the same quarter a year earlier. Entertainment operating income for the fourth quarter totaled $691 million, down 35% compared with last year.
The softer box office showing during the fourth quarter was being compared with the strong performance of the irreverent superhero flick “Deadpool & Wolverine” in the year-earlier period, as well as the tail end of the theatrical window for the animated juggernaut “Inside Out 2,” each of which would go on to gross more than $1 billion globally.
For the full year, however, Disney’s entertainment segment — which includes movies, TV, Disney+ and Hulu — posted revenue of $42.5 billion, up 3% compared with fiscal year 2024. Operating income totaled $4.7 billion, an increase of 19%.
Though the company saw a 16% decline in revenue for its linear networks in the fourth quarter due to lower ad dollars and viewership, Disney did see an increase for its streaming services. The company reported fourth-quarter streaming revenue of $6.2 billion, an 8% jump compared with the previous year, and operating income of $352 million, up 39%.
“This was another year of great progress as we strengthened the company by leveraging the value of our creative and brand assets and continued to make meaningful progress in our direct-to-consumer businesses,” Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger said in a statement. “I’m pleased with our many achievements this fiscal year to position Disney for the future.”
Disney’s fourth-quarter revenue totaled $22.5 billion, about flat compared with the previous year. That put the company’s year-end revenue at $94.4 billion, up 3%.
Earnings, excluding certain items, for the fourth quarter totaled 73 cents per share, up from 25 cents a year earlier. For the full year, earnings per share was $6.85, up from $2.72. The company’s income before taxes in the fourth quarter was $2 billion, up from $948 million last year; for the full year, it was up 59% to $12 billion.
Disney’s experiences segment, which includes its theme parks, cruise line and Aulani resort and spa in Hawaii, was a bright spot for the fourth quarter. The company reported revenue of $8.8 billion, an increase of 6% from the previous year’s fourth quarter, with operating income rising 13% to $1.9 billion.
Operating income for domestic parks and experiences for the quarter was up 9% to $920 million, which Disney attributed to growth at its cruise line. Disney also got a boost from its international parks and experiences segment, largely due to an increase in attendance and spending at its Disneyland Paris resort.
For the full fiscal year, Disney’s experiences business reported revenue of $36.2 billion, a 6% bump, with operating income increasing 8% to nearly $10 billion.
Disney’s sports business, which includes ESPN, reported quarterly revenue of nearly $4 billion, up 2%, with operating income decreasing 2% to $911 million. The company said the decline in operating income was due to higher marketing costs associated with the August launch of the new ESPN direct-to-consumer service and increases in programming and production costs.
The sports business closed out the year with revenue of $17.6 billion, roughly flat compared with the previous fiscal year, and a 20% jump in operating income to $2.9 billion.
The former chief executive of WPP’s Motion Content Group — the producer behind “Love Is Blind” and other reality TV shows — is suing the ad agency, saying he was fired after he flagged alleged improper billing practices.
In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Tuesday, Richard Foster said he was ousted after he repeatedly warned senior managers about alleged “kickback practices” involving the company’s “rebate-driven deals” that he said “were unsustainable, unlawful, and a significant threat to the Company.”
Foster, a 17-year veteran, led WPP’s media division that is the producer and co-financier of “Love Island” and some 2,500 other television shows around the world. The division was rebranded in 2023 as GroupM Motion Entertainment in the North America.
Foster alleged in his lawsuit that GroupM leveraged “client budgets to secure inventory deals” from media companies that included cash rebates, inventory discounts and other financial incentives, and that these transactions were not always transparent or disclosed to clients.
Over the last five years, the lawsuit states, the company “generated rebate-driven deals valued between $3 [billion] and $4 billion, of which it improperly retained approximately $1.5 [billion] to $2 billion.”
But rather than confront the issues, Foster claims executives “marginalized him, and ultimately terminated him and his team to cover up their own improper practices.”
WPP disputed the claims.
“The Company is aware of a lawsuit in the New York State Court filed by a former employee who was let go in a recent organizational restructuring,” a WPP spokesperson said in a statement. “The court has not yet made any findings in relation to the allegations and we will defend them vigorously.”
In December, Foster submitted a 35-page internal report emphasizing that there were opportunities to establish a new entertainment division, but warned that its use of rebates could pose “possible legal and reputational” risks to the company.
At one point, Foster alleged that he told one executive, that “WPP and GroupM have ‘been sleepwalking to the edge of a cliff and people don’t want to hear it.’”
In January, Foster said he was asked to discuss the report with Brian Lesser, global CEO of GroupM, who “expressed concern about the legal risks tied to GroupM Trading and said he would investigate this further.” Days later Foster claimed that he received a text from Lesser asking him to send a “sanitized version of the report” and “to exclude any overt criticism of [GroupM Trading] as that is not in the spirit of working together.”
Eventually, Foster said he was terminated on July 10. He is seeking $100 million in damages.
“Richard Foster devoted nearly two decades to helping build one of the world’s most successful media and entertainment creation operations,” his attorney, William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, said in a statement. “When he stood up for transparency and accountability at WPP, he was let go. This case will shine a light on systemic misconduct and the retaliation faced by an executive who refused to go along to get along.”
Sheehan was named as assistant to Michael Duff in the summer of 2023 and was placed in interim charge of the first team in December of the same year following the manager’s departure.
Under Sheehan’s guidance, the Swans took 11 of the 21 points on offer before Williams was appointed as Duff’s permanent replacement in January 2024.
But little more than a year on, Sheehan was back in temporary charge after Williams was sacked.
The former Republic of Ireland international led his side to an even better run second time around as Swansea claimed 24 points from his 13 games as boss to guide the club to an 11th-place finish – a remarkable achievement given the Welsh side had flirted with relegation just months earlier.
After earning a three-year contract as head coach, announced at the end of last April, Sheehan was backed heavily in the summer transfer window as Swansea’s new ownership group – led by Cravatt and Cohen – showed their intent on getting the club in a position to challenge for a top-flight return.
Adam Idah, Marko Stamenic, Zeidane Inoussa and Ethan Galbraith were among those to command hefty transfer fees.
But they have been unable to convert the early season optimism at the club into results – with their attacking output under Sheehan in particular being criticised.
Swansea’s expected goals (xG) of 12.48 is the lowest of any team in the division, while their total of 15 big chances created is comfortably the worst of any side in the second tier.
During Saturday’s defeat by Ipswich some fans booed at half-time and full-time – with some aiming chants of ‘we want Sheehan out’ at their head coach after the match.
He will now leave south Wales having overseen a run of just one win in eight matches across all competitions.
Now, in what is the final international break of the calendar year, fans will hope the impending managerial change can give the club time to turn around their fortunes and reignite their hopes of securing a top-six finish.
Swansea return to league action against Bristol City at Ashton Gate on Saturday, 22 November (12:30 GMT).
The play, which is based on the young adult novel by Suzanne Collins and 2012 film that catapulted actor Jennifer Lawrence into the mainstream, is just the latest film-to-stage adaptation from Hollywood.
This isn’t a new playbook. After all, Disney revolutionized the space by adapting its animated films like “The Lion King,” “Beauty and the Beast” and “Aladdin” into Broadway musical hits. But it is one that studios are turning to again, particularly as they look to connect more deeply with audiences and expand the fan base of their franchises.
You’re reading the Wide Shot
Samantha Masunaga delivers the latest news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.
Last year, Universal Theatrical Group debuted a musical stage adaptation of the 1992 film “Death Becomes Her” on Broadway.
In addition to “The Hunger Games,” Lionsgate has several other theatrical shows in the works, including a stage adaptation of the 2017 film “Wonder” opening in Boston in December, as well as “Now You See Me Live” opening that same month at the Sydney Opera House.
Next year, there will be a stage version of “La La Land,” as well as a new production of the iconic classic “Dirty Dancing.” (Of course, the opposite is also happening, with “Wicked” as the most recent example of a book-to-stage-to-film pipeline.)
“When you look at the way that fans are engaging with entertainment, there are so many different mediums that are important now, and experiential is a big one,” Jenefer Brown, Lionsgate’s president of global products and experiences, said an interview. “With all of us spending so much time online and in digital mediums, the idea of that shared live experience in a theater is something that’s highly appealing.”
But getting “The Hunger Games” to the stage wasn’t easy — the process took almost seven years from the inception of the idea to first previews. As part of the show’s development, the producers also built a custom theater in London. Brown spoke with The Times about why the dystopian franchise was a good candidate for live theater and why communal experiences are so important.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
What made “The Hunger Games” ripe for the stage?
It’s an enduring story that has so much relevance to occurrences that happen in the world today. I think that there’s just a ton of cultural significance.
And what we know about “The Hunger Games” is that there’s always a new wave of fans that discover it. Now we’re seeing Gen Alpha reading the books and watching the movies, and of course, we have Gen Z fans and millennial fans, and parents from other generations who have been on the journey with their children. It’s a way to bring aspects of the book to life, maybe in a different interpretation, or to let fans be able to explore certain things in a greater depth than we were able to do on a movie screen.
What does a stage play do for audiences that, say, a series or ride does not?
When you’re seeing something live, we don’t have the tricks that we have behind a camera in a movie.
You have to really find ways to bring the audience on a journey, and you can’t hide anything. That’s part of the magic of the experience, and for fans to be there and be mesmerized by some of the things that we’re executing in real time on a stage with special effects and illusions and real people doing the stunt choreography and the stunt work right in front of you, I think that there’s a lot of value in that type of experience.
Does this allow you to reach different audiences than those who already saw the films?
Obviously, a lot of fans are interested, but I think theatergoers in general, who maybe haven’t been as exposed to “The Hunger Games” or aren’t super fans, are going to be interested from the theater side of it. There’s been a lot of buzz and excitement in London, in the theater world, knowing that we had a new theater being built.
In general, lots of of people want to engage with experiences. We’re seeing just a huge sort of upward trend in interest, particularly amongst Gen Z and Gen Alpha audiences. Someone who maybe has read the books but hasn’t seen the movie yet will come see the stage show and then watch the movie. And I think this idea of all of it feeding each other, depending on which entry point you choose, is a really interesting thing for us as a studio to think about.
Did the pandemic turbocharge interest in live entertainment?
It’s an interest in live stage and live entertainment, and the idea of getting out again, supporting the arts and supporting shared experiences. We’ve definitely seen, thankfully, a recovery and an upswing in that area.
How big of a business is the stage aspect of Lionsgate global products and experiences?
We have three shows opening before the end of this year, and about that number slated for next year. So it really is a very busy and active space for us, and I think more in the pipeline. We probably are spending about a third of our time in this space, and I don’t see that changing.
Stuff We Wrote
Film shoots
Number of the week
$80 million
After a sleepy October, Walt Disney Co. and 20th Century Studios’ “Predator: Badlands” conquered the box office this past weekend, grossing $40 million in the U.S. and Canada for a total of nearly $80 million worldwide.
The haul is the highest global opening for any film in “Predator” franchise history, surpassing 2018’s “The Predator,” which notched $73.5 million.
The strong start for the Elle Fanning-led “Predator: Badlands” provides a hopeful start for November’s theatrical fortunes. So far this year, domestic box office revenue is about $7.2 billion, up 3.1% compared with the previous year, according to Comscore. But when compared with pre-pandemic 2019, that number is still down 24.7%.
Finally …
My colleague, Malia Mendez, wrote about a TV writer who found a second career in ceramics after the slowdown in Hollywood left him out of work. His most popular workshop — Tattoo a Mug.
Tech scion David Ellison marked his 96th day running Paramount by disclosing an upbeat financial outlook for next year and a plan to reduce an additional 1,600 workers.
Monday’s conference call with analysts was the first time Ellison, Paramount’s chairman and chief executive, directly addressed Wall Street after merging his production company, Skydance Media, with Paramount in August — an $8-billion deal that ushered the Redstone family from the entertainment stage.
One of Ellison’s top priorities will be to reverse decades of under-investment in programming. Paramount plans to increase content spending by $1.5 billion next year, including nearly doubling the number of movies that it releases. The Melrose Avenue studio intends to boost output from eight releases to 15 that are planned for next year.
Investing in technology is another priority, which Ellison referred to as one of its “north stars.” Executives want to build streaming service Paramount+ as the economics crumble for Paramount’s once profitable cable television division, which includes Nickelodeon, MTV and Comedy Central. Paramount also owns CBS stations and the CBS broadcast network.
Paramount announced it will be hiking streaming subscription fees — Paramount+ plans now are offered at $7.99 a month and $12.99 a month — although executives declined to say how much. The goal is to turn its streaming operations profitable this year.
Paramount said the workforce reduction of 1,600 people stemmed from the company’s divestiture late last month of television stations in Chile and Argentina. This comes on top of 1,000 job cuts last month, primarily in the U.S. The company said one of its goals was to operate more efficiently.
Ellison and his team have been looking to reduce the company’s workforce by 15%.
On Monday, Paramount executives said they should be able to realize about $3 billion in cost cuts — $1 billion more than initially advertised. The company’s goal is to complete its cost reductions within two years.
The earnings report comes as Paramount has been pursuing Warner Bros. Discovery, a proposed merger that would unite two of Hollywood’s original film studios and bulk up Paramount by adding the HBO Max streaming service, a larger portfolio of cable channels, pioneering cable news service CNN and the historic Warner Bros. studio lot in Burbank.
Paramount executives declined to discuss its dealings for Warner Bros. Discovery, which has rejected three offers, including a $58-billion bid for the entire company. Ellison’s father, billionaire Larry Ellison, has agreed to back Paramount’s bid.
However, his son spoke broadly about its motivations for any acquisition during the conference call.
“First and foremost, we’re focused on what we’re building at Paramount and transforming the company,” David Ellison said. “There’s no must-haves for us. …. It’s always going to be, how do we accelerate and improve our north-star principles?”
Total revenue for Paramount’s third quarter was $6.7 billion, flat compared with the year-earlier period. Paramount reported a net loss of $257 million for the quarter.
Paramount+ and other streaming services grew by 1.4 million subscribers to 79 million, although 1.2 million of those consumers benefit from free trials. Quarterly Revenue for the streaming operations, including Pluto TV, was up 17%.
In a blow, however, Taylor Sheridan, the prolific creator behind the “Yellowstone” franchise, will be packing his bags. Sheridan, who is under contract with Paramount through 2028, made a deal to develop movies and future shows for NBCUniversal after executives he worked with at Paramount departed the company when Ellison took over.
For 2026, the company expects to generate total revenue of $30 billion and adjusted operating income before depreciation and amortization of $3.5 billion.
Shares closed at $15.25, up 1%, before the earnings were announced.
ESPN is shifting its strategy on online sports gambling, ending its partnership with Penn Entertainment.
The companies announced Thursday they were terminating an agreement that offered ESPN equity in Penn, which operated the ESPN Bet sportsbook app. The app will no longer carry the familiar red ESPN logo. It will operate under a new name.
ESPN said it will partner with DraftKings, a leading sports betting company, which will provide odds and other gaming-related data for the Walt Disney Co. unit’s programs and its digital platforms. ESPN’s on-air staff will use DraftKings’ odds starting Dec. 1.
According to people familiar with the ESPN-Penn arrangement, the app simply didn’t reach its financial targets in the highly competitive business, which operates in the 31 states where online gambling is legal.
In 2023, Penn agreed to pay $1.5 billion in cash over the next 10 years for the rights to use the ESPN name on its app. As part of the deal, ESPN promoted the product across its programming and provided access to on-air talent. ESPN had the right to purchase up to 31.8 million shares of Penn stock for $500 million over the 10-year period.
“When we first announced our partnership with ESPN, both sides made it clear that we expected to compete for a podium position in the space,” said Jay Snowden, CEO and President of Penn Entertainment. “Although we made significant progress in improving our product offering and building a cohesive ecosystem with ESPN, we have mutually and amicably agreed to wind down our collaboration.”
The end of the deal comes shortly after an FBI investigation led to the arrest of Miami Heat player Terry Rozier, who allegedly pulled out of a game claiming injury to deliver a win on one of his prop bets.
ESPN’s decision is unrelated to the recent news, as the company has been in talks for months with DraftKings about a new partnership. But no longer having the ESPN name on a betting app will keep the brand out of the line of fire if the NBA case escalates.
Beginning in December, DraftKings will have its app exclusively integrated across ESPN’s platforms.
The companies said they will “collaborate to advance their shared commitment to responsible gaming, by dedicating prominent assets to educate, raise customer awareness and promote responsible play through campaigns and integrations.”
DraftKings will provide the betting tab within the ESPN app and its customers will receive special promotions for ESPN’s newly launched direct-to-consumer streaming product.
DraftKings operates in 28 states and in Washington, D.C., and Ontario, Canada, and has more than 10 million customers across its products.
Warner Bros. Discovery reported a $148 million loss in the third quarter, hitting a sour note as the company began fielding interest from would-be buyers as Hollywood braces for a transforming deal.
Earnings for the entertainment company that includes HBO, CNN and the Warner Bros. film and TV studios fell short of analyst expectations. A year ago, the company reported profit of $135 million for the third quarter.
Revenue of $9.05 billion declined 6% from the year-ago period. The company swung to a loss of 6 cents a share, compared to last year’s earnings of 5 cents a share.
Still, Chief Executive David Zaslav spent much of Thursday’s call with analysts touting his company’s underlying strengths — while avoided giving details about the company’s sale.
“It’s fair to say that we have an active process underway,” Zaslav said.
Warner Bros. Discovery on Thursday reiterated it is forging ahead with previously announced plans to split into two separate entities by next spring. However, the Warner board acknowledged last month that it was also entertaining offers for the entire company — or its parts — after David Ellison’s Paramount expressed its interest with formal bids.
Paramount has made three offers, including a $58 billion in cash and stock for all of Warner Bros. Discovery. That bid would pay Warner stockholders $23.50 a share.
The Ellison family appears determined to win one of Hollywood’s most storied entertainment companies to pair with Paramount, which the Ellisons and RedBird Capital Partners acquired in August.
But Warner Bros. Discovery’s board, including Zaslav, voted unanimously to reject Paramount’s offers and instead opened the auction to other bidders, which is expected to lead to the firm changing hands for the third time in a decade.
Board members are betting the company, which has shown flickers of a turnaround, is worth more than the offers on the table. Despite its rocky third-quarter results, Warner’s stock held its ground in early morning trading at around $22.60 a share.
“Overall we are very bullish,” Zaslav said of the company’s business prospects.
“When you look at our films like ‘Superman,’ ‘Weapons’ and ‘One Battle After Another,’ the global reach of HBO Max and the diversity of our network’s offerings, we’ve managed to bring the best, most treasured traditions of Warner Bros. forward into a new era of entertainment and [a] new media landscape,” he said.
But the company’s results underscored its business challenges.
The studio witnessed a major decline in advertising revenue in the third quarter, reporting $1.41 billion, down 16% from the previous year, which executives attributed to declines in the audience for its domestic linear channels, including CNN, TNT and TLC.
Distribution revenue also took a hit, as the company reported sales of $4.7 billion, a decrease of 4% compared to last year.
Studio revenue increased 24% to $3.3 billion, powered by the success of DC Studios’ “Superman,” horror flick “Weapons” and the latest installment of “The Conjuring.” But even those box office wins couldn’t totally offset shortfalls in other areas of its content business.
Last year, the company was able to sub-license its rights to broadcast the Olympics in Europe, which pushed content revenue to $2.72 billion. But this year, revenue was down 3% to $2.65 billion.
Burbank-based Warner Bros. has had a string of success in theaters, with nine films opening at the top spot globally at the box office. The studio recently surpassed $4 billion in worldwide box office revenue, making it the first studio to do so this year. Warner Bros. last achieved that milestone in 2019.
Zaslav would like to continue with Warner’s break-up plans, which were announced last June.
The move would allow him to stay on to manage a smaller Hollywood-focused entity made up of the Warner Bros. studios, HBO, streaming service HBO Max and the company’s vast library, which includes Harry Potter movies and award-winning television shows such as “The Pitt.”
The company’s large portfolio of cable channels, including HGTV, Food Network and Cartoon Network, would become Discovery Global and operate independently.
Beyond Paramount, Philadelphia-based Comcast, Netflix and Amazon have expressed interest in considering buying parts of the company.
The company said its third quarter loss of $148 million was the result of a $1.3 billion expense, including restructuring costs.
California’s tech companies, the epicenter of the state’s economy, sent politicians a loud message this year: Back down from restrictive artificial intelligence regulation or they’ll leave.
The tactic appeared to have worked, activists said, because some politicians weakened or scrapped guardrails to mitigate AI’s biggest risks.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected a bill aimed at making companion chatbots safer for children after the tech industry fought it. In his veto message, the governor raised concerns about placing broad limits on AI, which has sparked a massive investment spree and created new billionaires overnight around the San Francisco Bay Area.
Assembly Bill 1064 would have barred companion chatbot operators from making these AI systems available to minors unless the chatbots weren’t “foreseeably capable” of certain conduct, including encouraging a child to engage in self-harm. Newsom said he supported the goal, but feared it would unintentionally bar minors from using AI tools and learning how to use technology safely.
“We cannot prepare our youth for a future where AI is ubiquitous by preventing their use of these tools altogether,” he wrote in his veto message.
The bill’s veto was a blow to child safety advocates who had pushed it through the state Legislature and a win for tech industry groups that fought it. In social media ads, groups such as TechNet had urged the public to tell the governor to veto the bill because it would harm innovation and lead to students falling behind in school.
Organizations trying to rein in the world’s largest tech companies as they advance the powerful technology say the tech industry has become more empowered at the national and state levels.
Meta, Google, OpenAI, Apple and other major tech companies have strengthened their relationships with the Trump administration. Companies are funding new organizations and political action committees to push back against state AI policy while pouring money into lobbying.
In Sacramento, AI companies have lobbied behind the scenes for more freedom. California’s massive pool of engineering talent, tech investors and companies make it an attractive place for the tech industry, but companies are letting policymakers know that other states are also interested in attracting those investments and jobs. Big Tech is particularly sensitive to regulations in the Golden State because so many companies are headquartered there and must abide by its rules.
“We believe California can strike a better balance between protecting consumers and enabling responsible technological growth,” Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California and the Southwest, said in a statement.
Common Sense Media founder and Chief Executive Jim Steyer said tech lobbyists put tremendous pressure on Newsom to veto AB 1064. Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that rates and reviews technology and entertainment for families, sponsored the bill.
“They threaten to hurt the economy of California,” he said. “That’s the basic message from the tech companies.”
Advertising is among the tactics tech companies with deep pockets use to convince politicians to kill or weaken legislation. Even if the governor signs a bill, companies have at times sued to block new laws from taking effect.
“If you’re really trying to do something bold with tech policy, you have to jump over a lot of hurdles,” said David Evan Harris, senior policy advisor at the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, which supported AB 1064. The group focuses on finding state-level solutions to threats that AI, disinformation and emerging technologies pose to democracy.
Tech companies have threatened to move their headquarters and jobs to other states or countries, a risk looming over politicians and regulators.
The California Chamber of Commerce, a broad-based business advocacy group that includes tech giants, launched a campaign this year that warned over-regulation could stifle innovation and hinder California.
“Making competition harder could cause California companies to expand elsewhere, costing the state’s economy billions,” the group said on its website.
From January to September, the California Chamber of Commerce spent $11.48 million lobbying California lawmakers and regulators on a variety of bills, filings to the California secretary of state show. During that period, Meta spent $4.13 million. A lobbying disclosure report shows that Meta paid the California Chamber of Commerce $3.1 million, making up the bulk of their spending. Google, which also paid TechNet and the California Chamber of Commerce, spent $2.39 million.
Amazon, Uber, DoorDash and other tech companies spent more than $1 million each. TechNet spent around $800,000.
The threat that California companies could move away has caught the attention of some politicians.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who has investigated tech companies over child safety concerns, indicated that despite initial concern, his office wouldn’t oppose ChatGPT maker OpenAI’s restructuring plans. The new structure gives OpenAI’s nonprofit parent a stake in its for-profit public benefit corporation and clears the way for OpenAI to list its shares.
Bonta blessed the restructuring partly because of OpenAI’s pledge to stay in the state.
“Safety will be prioritized, as well as a commitment that OpenAI will remain right here in California,” he said in a statement last week. The AG’s office, which supervises charitable trusts and ensures these assets are used for public benefit, had been investigating OpenAI’s restructuring plan over the last year and a half.
OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said he’s glad to stay in California.
“California is my home, and I love it here, and when I talked to Attorney General Bonta two weeks ago I made clear that we were not going to do what those other companies do and threaten to leave if sued,” he posted on X.
Critics — which included some tech leaders such as Elon Musk, Meta and former OpenAI executives as well as nonprofits and foundations — have raised concerns about OpenAI’s restructuring plan. Some warned it would allow startups to exploit charitable tax exemptions and let OpenAI prioritize financial gain over public good.
Lawmakers and advocacy groups say it’s been a mixed year for tech regulation. The governor signed Assembly Bill 56, which requires platforms to display labels for minors that warn about social media’s mental health harms. Another piece of signed legislation, Senate Bill 53, aims to make AI developers more transparent about safety risks and offers more whistleblower protections.
The governor also signed a bill that requires chatbot operators to have procedures to prevent the production of suicide or self-harm content. But advocacy groups, including Common Sense Media, removed their support for Senate Bill 243 because they said the tech industry pushed for changes that weakened its protections.
Newsom vetoed other legislation that the tech industry opposed, including Senate Bill 7, which requires employers to notify workers before deploying an “automated decision system” in hiring, promotions and other employment decisions.
Called the “No Robo Bosses Act,” the legislation didn’t clear the governor, who thought it was too broad.
“A lot of nuance was demonstrated in the lawmaking process about the balance between ensuring meaningful protections while also encouraging innovation,” said Julia Powles, a professor and executive director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy.
The battle over AI safety is far from over. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who co-wrote AB 1064, said she plans to revive the legislation.
Child safety is an issue that both Democrats and Republicans are examining after parents sued AI companies such as OpenAI and Character.AI for allegedly contributing to their children’s suicides.
“The harm that these chatbots are causing feels so fast and furious, public and real that I thought we would have a different outcome,” Bauer-Kahan said. “It’s always fascinating to me when the outcome of policy feels to be disconnected from what I believe the public wants.”
Steyer from Common Sense Media said a new ballot initiative includes the AI safety protections that Newsom vetoed.
“That was a setback, but not an overall defeat,” he said about the veto of AB 1064. “This is a David and Goliath situation, and we are David.”
Southern California Edison has cut power to hundreds of thousands of its customers this year, more than ever before, as it attempts to stop its electric lines from sparking wildfires.
The utility has told communities in fire-prone areas in recent weeks that they should expect more of the power shutoffs than in prior years and that the outages could last for longer periods of time.
The Rosemead-based company said it had lowered the wind speed that triggers the blackouts, and added tens of thousands of customers to the areas subject to them, after the devastating Jan. 7 Eaton fire. The inferno, which killed 19 people in Altadena, ignited in high winds under an Edison transmission line.
“You should be ready for the power to cut off at any moment,” Ian Anderson, a government relations manager for Edison, told the Moorpark City Council at an October meeting. He urged residents to buy generators and said the utility doesn’t reimburse customers for spoiled food and other losses if it believes the blackouts were required by “an act of God.”
“But PSPS is not an act of God,” responded Moorpark Councilmember Renee Delgado, using the acronym for public safety power shutoffs. “It’s a choice SCE is making.”
For more than a decade, California utilities have used the shutoffs to stop their equipment from sparking fires. The intentional outages have become so established in California’s wildfire prevention plans that Edison now faces lawsuits saying that it failed to shut off some of its lines before the Eaton fire.
Yet in recent months, the utility has heard a chorus of complaints from communities including Moorpark and Malibu that it is blacking out customers even when the winds are calm. And the utility often has failed to warn people of the coming outages, making it impossible for them to prepare, according to filings at the state Public Utilities Commission.
“You guys have put us into a Third World situation,” Scott Dittrich, a resident of Malibu, said at a Sept. 30 meeting that the city had with Edison to address the shutoffs.
Kathleen Dunleavy, an Edison spokeswoman, said the company recognizes that “any power outage is a hardship.”
But the outages are needed because they have prevented fires in dangerous weather, she said. “Our commitment is to keeping our communities safe,” she added.
This year, Edison has cut off 534,000 customers to prevent fires, according to data it filed with state regulators. That’s almost four times the 137,000 customers subject to the blackouts in 2024.
Under state rules, utilities can use the outages only as a measure of last resort — when the risk of electrical equipment igniting a fire is greater than the dangerous hazards the blackouts cause.
Disconnecting a neighborhood or city can cause far more than just inconvenience.
Traffic lights no longer work, causing perilous intersections. During a Dec. 10 outage in Moorpark, a utility truck failed to stop at a nonworking light on State Route 118, crashing into a sedan. The driver was injured and had to be extracted from the truck by emergency responders, according to the city’s report to state regulators.
The shutoffs also leave residents who have medical problems without the use of needed devices and refrigerators to store medications.
And they can cut off communication, stopping residents from getting evacuation warnings and other emergency messages.
During the Eaton and Palisades fires, the power shutoffs, as well as outages caused by wind and fire damage, “significantly disrupted the effectiveness of evacuation messaging,” according to a recent review of Los Angeles County’s emergency performance.
In the last three months of last year, Edison received 230 reports of traffic accidents, people failing to get needed medical care and other safety problems tied to the shutoffs, according to the company’s reports.
Dunleavy said Edison turned off the power only when staff believed the risk of fire exceeded the outages’ consequences.
Nonetheless, Alice Reynolds, president of the Public Utilities Commission, told Edison last month that she had “serious concern” about how the utility was leaving more customers in the dark.
Reynolds wrote in a letter to Steve Powell, the utility’s chief executive, that records showed that the company de-energized not just a record number of residential customers in January, but also more than 10,000 crucial facilities such as hospitals. The longest blackout lasted for 15 days, she said.
“There is no question that power outages — particularly those that are large scale and extended over many days — can cause significant hardship to customers, jeopardizing the safety of customers with medical needs who rely on electricity and disrupting businesses, critical facilities, and schools,” she wrote.
Reynolds said she would require Edison executives to hold biweekly meetings with state regulators where they must show how they planned to limit the scope and duration of the blackouts and improve their notifications to customers of coming shutoffs.
Powell wrote back to her, acknowledging “that our execution of PSPS events has not always met expectations.”
“SCE remains committed to improving its PSPS program to help customers prepare for potential de-energizations and reduce the impacts,” he wrote.
Since 2019, Edison has charged billions of dollars to customers for wildfire prevention work, including increased equipment inspections and the installation of insulated wires, which it said would reduce the need for the shutoffs.
Just four months before the Eaton fire, at an annual safety meeting, Edison executives told state regulators that the utility’s fire mitigation work had been so successful that it had sharply reduced the number of shutoffs, while also decreasing the risk of a catastrophic wildfire by as much as 90%.
A year later, at this year’s annual safety meeting in August, those risk reduction estimates were gone from the company’s presentation. Instead, Edison executives said they expected the number of shutoffs to increase this year by 20% to 40%. They added that the average size of the areas subject to the outages could be twice as large as last year.
The executives blamed “below average rainfall and extended periods of high winds” for increasing the risk that the company’s equipment could start a fire.
“The weather is getting more difficult for us,” Jill Anderson, Edison’s chief operating officer, said at the meeting.
Some customers have questioned whether the utility’s increasingly unreliable electricity lines should be solely blamed on the weather. They say the shutoffs have seemed more and more random.
The Acton Town Council told the utilities commission in January that Edison was blacking out residents when dangerous conditions “do not exist.”
At the same time, the council wrote, Edison had cut power to neighborhoods served by wires that had been undergrounded, an expensive upgrade that Edison has said would prevent the need for the shutoffs.
Edison’s Dunleavy said that although the Acton homes in those neighborhoods were served by underground lines, they were connected to a circuit that had overhead lines, requiring them to be turned off.
“We try to reroute as much as possible to minimize disruptions,” she said.
At the Moorpark City Council meeting, residents spoke of how the repeated outages, some lasting for days, had caused children to miss school and businesses to close their doors and lose revenue.
The residents also spoke of how their electric bills continued to rise as they had spent more days in the dark.
Joanne Carnes, a Moorpark resident, told Anderson, Edison’s government relations manager, that her last monthly bill was $421.
“Why are we paying more than a car payment,” she asked, “for a service that is not able to provide power?”
Netflix on Wednesday touted a surge in popularity for its low-cost streaming plan with ads, as it looks to tap into the lucrative the world of brands.
The streaming giant said it now has more than 190 million monthly active viewers watching ads through a plan that costs $7.99 a month. The lowest cost ad-free plan costs $17.99 a month.
However, the Los Gatos, Calif.-based company is now using a different methodology to measure its audience watching ads, making exact comparison’s difficult.
Netflix now defines monthly active viewers as customers who watched at least 1 minute of ads on Netflix per month. It then multiplies that by the estimated average number of people in a household. Previously, Netflix had measured monthly active users based on the number of Netflix profiles watching content with ads.
The streamer said its previous measurement didn’t illustrate all the people who were in the room watching.
“Our move to viewers means we can give a more comprehensive count of how many people are actually on the couch, enjoying our can’t-miss series, films, games and live events with friends and family,”wrote Amy Reinhard, Netflix’s president of advertising in a post on the streamer’s website on Wednesday.
On Wednesday, Netflix executives said the growth in ad viewers was in line with their expectations.
“We are very satisfied with where we are at,” Reinhard, said in a press briefing. “We think there is a lot of opportunity to grow on this plan around the world, and we’re going to continue to make sure that we are offering our customers a great experience and a great buying experience on the advertising side.”
Netflix began its foray into ad-supported streaming in 2022, after it received pressure from investors to diversify how it makes revenue. Previously, Netflix mainly made money through subscriptions and for many years had been ad-adverse.
The company said last month it was on track to more than double its ad revenue in 2025, but did not cite specific figures. Netflix Co-CEO Greg Peters said in an earnings presentation in October that the ad revenue is still small relative to the size of the company’s subscription revenues, but advertisers are excited about Netflix’s growing scale.
“We see plenty of room for growth ahead,” Peters said.
On Wednesday, Netflix said it is expanding its options for advertisers, including demographic targeting in areas such as education, marital status and household income.
Netflix also said it has partnered with brands including brewing company Peroni Nastro Azzurro in ads for its romantic comedy series “Emily in Paris,” and tested dynamic ad insertion with programs including WWE Raw this quarter and will offer that feature in the U.S. and other countries for NFL Christmas Gameday.
The cuts in Hollywood just keep coming, following a sadly familiar script.
Last week it was Paramount, which laid off about 1,000 workers in the first wave of a deep staff reduction planned since tech scion David Ellison’s Skydance Media took over the storied media and entertainment company.
The cuts affected a wide swath of the company, from CBS and CBS News to Comedy Central, MTV and the historic Melrose Avenue film studio, my colleague Meg James and I reported. Another 1,000 layoffs are expected in the coming weeks.
You’re reading the Wide Shot
Samantha Masunaga delivers the latest news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.
And that doesn’t even include widespread job losses that happened earlier this year at companies such as Walt Disney Co., Warner Bros. Discovery, NBCUniversal and Six Flags Entertainment Corp.
It all adds up to a grim picture for Hollywood’s workers, who have faced a near endless marathon of economic hurdles for the last five years.
First it was the pandemic, followed by the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes in 2023, cutbacks in spending after studios splurged on streaming productions, and the outflow of production to the U.K. and other countries with lower costs than California.
Then, in January, nature struck a blow, with the fires in Altadena and the Pacific Palisades destroying many industry workers’ homes.
Topping it off, Saturday marked the first day that millions of low-income Americans lost federal food assistance due to the government shutdown that began Oct. 1. That has affected some 5.5 million Californians and probably some who work in the entertainment industry.
“It’s been one crisis after another, without enough time in between,” said Keith McNutt, western regional executive director of the Entertainment Community Fund, which provides social services for arts and entertainment professionals. “People are concerned and very worried and really trying very hard to figure out where they go from here.”
McNutt reports that the nonprofit group has already heard from some people who were recently laid off, and has experienced a sharp increase in demand for its services, particularly from those in the film and TV industry. The fund offers healthcare and financial counseling and operates a career center. It also provides emergency grants for those who qualify.
Clients include not only low-income people who are always hit hardest in downturns, but also veteran entertainment industry professionals who’ve worked in the business for 20 to 30 years.
Those who were lucky enough to have savings saw those wiped out by the pandemic, and then were unable to replenish their rainy-day funds after the strikes and industry contraction, said David Rambo, chair of the fund’s western council.
“It has been snowballing very slowly for about five years,” Rambo said.
Many in the industry are hopeful that California’s newly expanded film and television tax credit program will bring some production — and jobs — back to the Golden State. That’s what backers campaigned on when they lobbied Sacramento legislators to bolster the program. Dozens of TV shows and films have received credits so far under the revamped program, but it’ll take some time to see the results in filming data and employment numbers.
And that doesn’t help the workers who were just laid off last month. For those folks, McNutt suggests calling the fund’s health insurance team to make sure they understand their options and also to spend some time with career counselors to understand how Hollywood skills can be transferable to other employers, whether that’s on a short- or long-term basis. Most importantly, don’t isolate yourself.
“You’re not alone,” he said. “Nobody’s alone in this situation that the industry is finding itself in right now, and so reach out to your friends, reach out to your colleagues. If you’re not comfortable with that, reach out to the Entertainment Community Fund.”
The 2017 Game 7 win by the Houston Astros over the Dodgers had an audience of 28.3 million.
The Dodgers are now the first Major League Baseball team to win back-to-back championships in 25 years. On Monday, thousands of Dodgers faithful turned out for the team’s victory parade through downtown L.A.
Finally …
You’ve no doubt heard of L.A.’s famous star tours. But what about a tour of a historic cemetery?
The cemetery is the final resting place for many of L.A.’s early movers and shakers, including the Lankershims and the Hollenbecks, and it’s also a prime example of L.A.’s multicultural history.
President Donald Trump’s razing of the White House’s East Wing to build a ballroom has put some news organizations following the story in an awkward position, with corporate owners among the contributors to the project — and their reporters covering it vigorously.
Comcast, which owns NBC News and MSNBC, has faced on-air criticism from some of the liberal cable channel’s personalities for its donation. Amazon, whose founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, is another donor. The newspaper editorialized in favor of Trump’s project, pointing out the Bezos connection a day later after critics noted its omission.
It’s not the first time since Trump regained the presidency that interests of journalists at outlets that are a small part of a corporate titan’s portfolio have clashed with owners. Both the Walt Disney Co. and Paramount have settled lawsuits with Trump rather than defend ABC News and CBS News in court.
“This is Trump’s Washington,” said Chuck Todd, former NBC “Meet the Press” host. “None of this helps the reputations of the news organizations that these companies own, because it compromises everybody.”
Companies haven’t said how much they donated, or why
None of the individuals and corporations identified by the White House as donors has publicly said how much was given, although a $22 million Google donation was revealed in a court filing. Comcast would not say Friday why it gave, although some MSNBC commentators have sought to fill in the blanks.
MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle said the donations should be a concern to Americans, “because there ain’t no company out there writing a check just for good will.”
“Those public-facing companies should know that there’s a cost in terms of their reputations with the American people,” Rachel Maddow said on her show this week, specifically citing Comcast. “There may be a cost to their bottom line when they do things against American values, against the public interest because they want to please Trump or buy him off or profit somehow from his authoritarian overthrow of our democracy.”
NBC’s “Nightly News” led its Oct. 22 broadcast with a story on the East Wing demolition, which reporter Gabe Gutierrez said was paid for by private donors, “among them Comcast, NBC’s parent company.”
“Nightly News” spent a total of five minutes on the story that week, half the time of ABC’s “World News Tonight,” though NBC pre-empted its Tuesday newscast for NBA coverage, said Andrew Tyndall, head of ADT Research. There’s no evidence that Comcast tried to influence NBC’s coverage in any way; Todd said the corporation’s leaders have no history of doing that. A Comcast spokeswoman had no comment.
Todd spoke out against his bosses at NBC News in the past, but said he doubted he would have done so in this case, in part because Comcast hasn’t said why the contribution was made. “You could make the defense that it is contributing to the United States” by renovating the White House, he said.
More troubling, he said, is the perception that Comcast CEO Brian Roberts had to do it to curry favor with the Trump administration. Trump, in a Truth Social post in April, called Comcast and Roberts “a disgrace to the integrity of Broadcasting!!!” The president cited the company’s ownership of MSNBC and NBC News.
Roberts may need their help. Stories this week suggested Comcast might be interested in buying all or part of Warner Bros. Discovery, a deal that would require government approval.
White House cannot be ‘a museum to the past’
The Post’s editorial last weekend was eye-opening, even for a section that has taken a conservative turn following Bezos’ direction that it concentrate on defending personal liberties and the free market. The Oct. 25 editorial was unsigned, which indicates that it is the newspaper’s official position, and was titled “In Defense of the White House ballroom.”
The Post said the ballroom is a necessary addition and although Trump is pursuing it “in the most jarring manner possible,” it would not have gotten done in his term if he went through a traditional approval process.
“The White House cannot simply be a museum to the past,” the Post wrote. “Like America, it must evolve with the times to maintain its greatness. Strong leaders reject calcification. In that way, Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere.”
In sharing a copy of the editorial on social media, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote that it was the “first dose of common sense I’ve seen from the legacy media on this story.”
The New York Times, by contrast, has not taken an editorial stand either for or against the project. It has run a handful of opinion columns: Ross Douthat called Trump’s move necessary considering potential red tape, while Maureen Dowd said it was an “unsanctioned, ahistoric, abominable destruction of the East Wing.”
In a social media post later Saturday, Columbia University journalism professor Bill Grueskin noted the absence of any mention of Bezos in the Post editorial” and said he wrote to a Post spokeswoman about it. In a “stealth edit” that Grueskin said didn’t include any explanation, a paragraph was added the next day about the private donors, including Amazon. “Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post,” the newspaper said.
The Post had no comment on the issue, spokeswoman Olivia Petersen said on Sunday.
In a story this past week, NPR reported that the ballroom editorial was one of three that the Post had written in the previous two weeks on a matter in which Bezos had a financial or corporate interest without noting his personal stakes.
In a public appearance last December, Bezos acknowledged that he was a “terrible owner” for the Post from the point of view of appearances of conflict. “A pure newspaper owner who only owned a newspaper and did nothing else would probably be, from that point of view, a much better owner,” the Amazon founder said.
Grueskin, in an interview, said Bezos had every right as an owner to influence the Post’s editorial policy. But he said it was important for readers to know his involvement in the East Wing story. They may reject the editorial because of the conflict, he said, or conclude that “the editorial is so well-argued, I put a lot of credibility into what I just read.”
At a Starbucks in downtown Culver City, Amit Jain pulls out his iPad Pro and presses play. On-screen, one of his employees at Luma AI — the Silicon Valley startup behind a new wave of generative video tools, which he co-founded and now runs — lumbers through the company’s Palo Alto office, arms swinging, shoulders hunched, pretending to be a monkey. Jain swipes to a second version of the same clip. Same movement, same hallway, but now he is a monkey. Fully rendered and believable, and created in seconds.
“The tagline for this would be, like, iPhone to cinema,” Jain says, flipping through other uncanny clips shared on his company’s Slack. “But, of course, it’s not full cinema yet.” He says it offhandedly — as if he weren’t describing a transformation that could upend not just how movies are made but what Hollywood is even for. If anyone can summon cinematic spectacle with a few taps, what becomes of the place that once called it magic?
Luma’s generative AI platform, Dream Machine, debuted last year and points toward a new kind of moviemaking, one where anyone can make release-grade footage with a few words. Type “a cowboy riding a velociraptor through Times Square,” and it builds the scene from scratch. Feed it a still photo and it brings the frozen moment to life: A dog stirs from a nap, trees ripple in the breeze.
Dream Machine’s latest tool, Modify Video, was launched in June. Instead of generating new footage, it redraws what’s already there. Upload a clip, describe what you want changed and the system reimagines the scene: A hoodie becomes a superhero cape, a sunny street turns snowy, a person transforms into a talking banana or a medieval knight. No green screen, no VFX team, no code. “Just ask,” the company’s website says.
For now, clips max out around 10 seconds, a limit set by the technology’s still-heavy computing demands. But as Jain points out, “The average shot in a movie is only eight seconds.”
A series on how the AI revolution is reshaping the creative foundations of Hollywood — from storytelling and performance to production, labor and power.
Jain’s long-term vision is even more radical: a world of fully personalized entertainment, generated on demand. Not mass-market blockbusters, but stories tailored to each individual: a comedy about your co-workers, a thriller set in your hometown, a sci-fi epic starring someone who looks like you, or simply anything you want to see. He insists he’s not trying to replace cinema but expand it, shifting from one-size-fits-all stories to something more personal, flexible and scalable.
“Today, videos are made for 100 million people at a time — they have to hit the lowest common denominator,” Jain says. “A video made just for you or me is better than one made for two unrelated people. That’s the problem we’re trying to solve… My intention is to get to a place where two hours of video can be generated for every human every day.”
It’s a staggering goal that Jain acknowledges is still aspirational. “That will happen, but when the prices are about a thousand times cheaper than where we are. Our research and our engineering are going toward that, to push the price down as much as humanly possible. Because that’s the demand for video. People watch hours and hours of video every day.”
Scaling to that level would require not just faster models but exponentially more compute power. Critics warn that the environmental toll of such expansion could be profound.
For Dream Machine to become what Jain envisions, it needs more than generative tricks — it needs a built-in narrative engine that understands how stories work: when to build tension, where to land a joke, how to shape an emotional arc. Not a tool but a collaborator. “I don’t think artists want to use tools,” he says. “They want to tell their stories and tools get in their way. Currently, pretty much all video generative models, including ours, are quite dumb. They are good pixel generators. At the end of the day, we need to build general intelligence that can tell a f— funny joke. Everything else is a distraction.”
The name may be coincidental, but nine years ago, MIT’s Media Lab launched a very different kind of machine: Nightmare Machine, a viral experiment that used neural networks to distort cheerful faces and familiar cityscapes into something grotesque. That project asked if AI could learn to frighten us. Jain’s vision points in a more expansive direction: an AI that is, in his words, “able to tell an engaging story.”
For many in Hollywood, though, the scenario Jain describes — where traditional cinema increasingly gives way to fast, frictionless, algorithmically personalized video — sounds like its own kind of nightmare.
Jain sees this shift as simply reflecting where audiences already are. “What people want is changing,” he says. “Movies obviously have their place but people aren’t spending time on them as much. What people want are things that don’t need their attention for 90 minutes. Things that entertain them and sometimes educate them and sometimes are, you know, thirst traps. The reality of the universe is you can’t change people’s behaviors. I think the medium will change very significantly.”
Still, Jain — who previously worked as an engineer on Apple’s Vision Pro, where he collaborated with filmmakers like Steven Spielberg and George Lucas — insists Hollywood isn’t obsolete, just due for reinvention. To that end, Luma recently launched Dream Lab LA, a creative studio aimed at fostering AI-powered storytelling.
“Hollywood is the largest concentration of storytellers in the world,” Jain says. “Just like Silicon Valley is the largest concentration of computer scientists and New York is the largest concentration of finance people. We need them. That’s what’s really special about Hollywood. The solution will come out of the marriage of technology and art together. I think both sides will adapt.”
It’s a hopeful outlook, one that imagines collaboration, not displacement. But not everyone sees it that way.
In Silicon Valley, where companies like Google, OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta are racing to build ever more powerful generative tools, such thinking is framed as progress. In Hollywood, it can feel more like erasure — a threat to authorship itself and to the jobs, identities and traditions built around it. The tension came to a head during the 2023 writers’ and actors’ strikes, when picket signs declared: “AI is not art” and “Human writers only.”
What once felt like the stuff of science fiction is now Hollywood’s daily reality. As AI becomes embedded in the filmmaking process, the entire ecosystem — from studios and streamers to creators and institutions — is scrambling to keep up. Some see vast potential: faster production, lower costs, broader access, new kinds of creative freedom. Others see an extraction machine that threatens the soul of the art form and a coming flood of cheap, forgettable content.
AI storytelling is just beginning to edge into theaters — and already sparking backlash. This summer, IMAX is screening 10 generative shorts from Runway’s AI Film Festival. At AMC Burbank, where one screening is set to take place later this month, a protest dubbed “Kill the Machine” is already being organized on social media, an early flashpoint in the growing resistance to AI’s encroachment on storytelling.
But ready or not, the gravity is shifting. Silicon Valley is pulling the film industry into its orbit, with some players rushing in and others dragged. Faced with consolidation, shrinking budgets and shareholder pressure to do more with less, studios are turning to AI not just to cut costs but to survive. The tools are evolving faster than the industry’s playbook, and the old ways of working are struggling to keep up. With generative systems poised to flood the zone with content, simply holding an audience’s attention, let alone shaping culture, is becoming harder than ever.
While the transition remains uneven, some studios are already leaning in. Netflix recently used AI tools to complete a complex VFX sequence for the Argentine sci-fi series “El Eternauta” in a fraction of the usual time. “We remain convinced that AI represents an incredible opportunity to help creators make films and series better, not just cheaper,” co-chief executive Ted Sarandos told analysts during a July earnings call.
At Paramount, incoming chief executive David Ellison is pitching a more sweeping transformation: a “studio in the cloud” that would use AI and other digital tools to reinvent every stage of filmmaking, from previsualization to post. Ellison, whose Skydance Media closed its merger with Paramount Global this week and whose father, Larry Ellison, co-founded Oracle, has vowed to turn the company into a tech-first media powerhouse. “Technology will transform every single aspect of this company,” he said last year.
In one of the most visible examples of AI adoption in Hollywood, Lionsgate, the studio behind the “John Wick” and “Hunger Games” franchises, struck a deal last year with the generative video startup Runway to train a custom model on its film and TV library, aiming to support future project development and improve efficiency. Lionsgate chief executive Jon Feltheimer, speaking to analysts after the agreement, said the company believes AI, used with “appropriate guardrails,” could have a “positive transformational impact” on the business.
Elsewhere, studios are experimenting more quietly: using AI to generate early character designs, write alternate dialogue or explore how different story directions might land. The goal isn’t to replace writers or directors, but to inform internal pitches and development. At companies like Disney, much of the testing is happening in games and interactive content, where the brand risk is lower and the guardrails are clearer. For now, the prevailing instinct is caution. No one wants to appear as if they’re automating away the heart of the movies.
Legacy studios like Paramount are exploring ways to bring down costs by incorporating AI into their pipeline.
(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
As major studios pivot, smaller, more agile players are building from the ground up for the AI era.
According to a recent report by FBRC.ai, an L.A.-based innovation studio that helps launch and advise early-stage AI startups in entertainment, more than 65 AI-native studios have launched since 2022, most of them tiny, self-funded teams of five or fewer. At these studios, AI tools allow a single creator to do the work of an entire crew, slashing production costs by 50% to 95% compared with traditional live-action or animation. The boundaries between artist, technician and studio are collapsing fast — and with them, the very idea of Hollywood as a gatekeeper.
That collapse is raising deeper questions: When a single person anywhere in the world can generate a film from a prompt, what does Hollywood still represent? If stories can be personalized, rendered on demand or co-written with a crowd, who owns them? Who gets paid? Who decides what matters and what disappears into the churn? And if narrative itself becomes infinite, remixable and disposable, does the idea of a story still hold any meaning at all?
Yves Bergquist leads the AI in Media Project at USC’s Entertainment Technology Center, a studio-backed think tank where Hollywood, academia and tech converge. An AI researcher focused on storytelling and cognition, he has spent years helping studios brace for a shift he sees as both inevitable and wrenching. Now, he says, the groundwork is finally being laid.
“We’re seeing very aggressive efforts behind the scenes to get studios ready for AI,” Bergquist says. “They’re building massive knowledge graphs, getting their data ready to be ingested into AI systems and putting governance committees in place to start shaping real policy.”
But adapting won’t be easy, especially for legacy studios weighed down by entrenched workflows, talent relationships, union contracts and layers of legal complexity. “These AI models weren’t built for Hollywood,” Bergquist says. “This is 22nd-century technology being used to solve 21st-century problems inside 19th-century organizational models. So it’s blood, sweat and tears getting them to fit.”
In an algorithmically accelerated landscape where trends can catch fire and burn out in hours, staying relevant is its own challenge. To help studios keep pace, Bergquist co-founded Corto, an AI startup that describes itself as a “growth genomics engine.” The company, which also works with brands like Unilever, Lego and Coca-Cola, draws on thousands of social and consumer sources, analyzing text, images and video to decode precisely which emotional arcs, characters and aesthetics resonate with which demographics and cultural segments, and why.
“When the game is attention, the weapon is understanding where culture and attention are and where they’re going.” Bergquist says, arguing media ultimately comes down to neuroscience.
Corto’s system breaks stories down into their formal components, such as tone, tempo, character dynamics and visual aesthetics, and benchmarks new projects against its extensive data to highlight, for example, that audiences in one region prefer underdog narratives or that a certain visual trend is emerging globally. Insights like these can help studios tailor marketing strategies, refine storytelling decisions or better assess the potential risk and appeal of new projects.
With ever-richer audience data and advances in AI modeling, Bergquist sees a future where studios can fine-tune stories in subtle ways to suit different viewers. “We might know that this person likes these characters better than those characters,” he says. “So you can deliver something to them that’s slightly different than what you’d deliver to me.”
A handful of studios are already experimenting with early versions of that vision — prototyping interactive or customizable versions of existing IP, exploring what it might look like if fans could steer a scene, adjust a storyline or interact with a favorite character. Speaking at May’s AI on the Lot conference, Danae Kokenos, head of technology innovation at Amazon MGM Studios, pointed to localization, personalization and interactivity as key opportunities. “How do we allow people to have different experiences with their favorite characters and favorite stories?” she said. “That’s not quite solved yet, but I see it coming.”
Bergquist is aware that public sentiment around AI remains deeply unsettled. “People are very afraid of AI — and they should be,” he acknowledges. “Outside of certain areas like medicine, AI is very unpopular. And the more capable it gets, the more unpopular it’s going to be.”
Still, he sees a significant upside for the industry. Get AI right, and studios won’t just survive but redefine storytelling itself. “One theory I really believe in is that as more people gain access to Hollywood-level production tools, the studios will move up the ladder — into multi-platform, immersive, personalized entertainment,” he says. “Imagine spending your life in Star Wars: theatrical releases, television, VR, AR, theme parks. That’s where it’s going.”
The transition won’t be smooth. “We’re in for a little more pain,” he says, “but I think we’ll see a rebirth of Hollywood.”
“AI slop” or creative liberation?
You don’t have to look far to find the death notices. TikTok, YouTube and Reddit are full of “Hollywood is dead” posts, many sparked by the rise of generative AI and the industry’s broader upheaval. Some sound the alarm. Others say good riddance. But what’s clear is that the center is no longer holding and no one’s sure what takes its place.
Media analyst Doug Shapiro has estimated that Hollywood produces about 15,000 hours of fresh content each year, compared to 300 million hours uploaded annually to YouTube. In that context, generative AI doesn’t need to reach Hollywood’s level to pose a major threat to its dominance — sheer volume alone is enough to disrupt the industry.
The attention economy is maxed out but attention itself hasn’t grown. As the monoculture fades from memory, Hollywood’s cultural pull is loosening. This year’s Oscars drew 19.7 million viewers, fewer than tuned in to a typical episode of “Murder, She Wrote” in the 1990s. The best picture winner, “Anora,” earned just $20 million at the domestic box office, one of the lowest tallies of any winner of the modern era. Critics raved, but fewer people saw it in theaters than watch the average moderately viral TikTok.
Amid this fragmentation, generative AI tools are fueling a surge of content. Some creators have a new word for it: “slop” — a catchall for cheap, low-effort, algorithmically churned-out media that clogs the feed in search of clicks. Once the world’s dream factory, Hollywood is now asking how it can stand out in an AI-powered media deluge.
Audience members watch an AI-assisted animated short at “Emergent Properties,” a 2023 Sony Pictures screening that offered a glimpse of the uncanny, visually inventive new wave of AI-powered filmmaking.
(Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)
Ken Williams, chief executive of USC’s Entertainment Technology Center and a former studio exec who co-founded Sony Pictures Imageworks, calls it a potential worst-case scenario in the making — “the kind of wholesale dehumanization of the creative process that people, in their darkest moments, fear.”
Williams says studios and creatives alike worry that AI will trap audiences in an algorithmic cul de sac, feeding them more of what they already know instead of something new.
“People who live entirely in the social media world and never come out of that foxhole have lost the ability to hear other voices — and no one wants to see that happen in entertainment.”
If the idea of uncontrolled, hyper-targeted AI content sounds like something out of an episode of “Black Mirror,” it was. In the 2023 season opener “Joan Is Awful,” a woman discovers her life is being dramatized in real time on a Netflix-style streaming service by an AI trained on her personal data, with a synthetic Salma Hayek cast as her on-screen double.
So far, AI tools have been adopted most readily in horror, sci-fi and fantasy, genres that encourage abstraction, stylization and visual surrealism. But when it comes to human drama, emotional nuance or sustained character arcs, the cracks start to show. Coherence remains a challenge. And as for originality — the kind that isn’t stitched together from what’s already out there — the results so far have generally been far from revelatory.
At early AI film festivals, the output has often leaned toward the uncanny or the conceptually clever: brief, visually striking experiments with loose narratives, genre tropes and heavily stylized worlds. Many feel more like demos than fully realized stories. For now, the tools excel at spectacle and pastiche but struggle with the kinds of layered, character-driven storytelling that define traditional cinema.
Then again, how different is that from what Hollywood is already producing? Today’s biggest blockbusters — sequels, reboots, multiverse mashups — often feel so engineered to please that it’s hard to tell where the algorithm ends and the artistry begins. Nine of the top 10 box office hits in 2024 were sequels. In that context, slop is, to some degree, in the eye of the beholder. One person’s throwaway content may be another’s creative breakthrough — or at least a spark.
Joaquin Cuenca, chief executive of Freepik, rejects the notion that AI-generated content is inherently low-grade. The Spain-based company, originally a stock image platform, now offers AI tools for generating images, video and voice that creators across the spectrum are starting to embrace.
“I don’t like this ‘slop’ term,” Cuenca says. “It’s this idea that either you’re a top renowned worldwide expert or it’s not worth it — and I don’t think that’s true. I think it is worth it. Letting people with relatively low skills or low experience make better videos can help people get a business off the ground or express things that are in their head, even if they’re not great at lighting or visuals.”
Freepik’s tools have already made their way into high-profile projects. Robert Zemeckis’ “Here,” starring a digitally de-aged Tom Hanks and set in one room over a period for decades, used the company’s upscaling tech to enhance backgrounds. A recently released anthology of AI-crafted short films, “Beyond the Loop,” which was creatively mentored by director Danny Boyle, used the platform to generate stylized visuals.
“More people will be able to make better videos, but the high end will keep pushing forward too,” Cuenca says. “I think it will expand what it means to be state of the art.”
For all the concern about runaway slop, Williams envisions a near-term stalemate, where AI expands the landscape without toppling the kind of storytelling that still sets Hollywood apart. In that future, he argues, the industry’s competitive edge — and perhaps its best shot at survival — will still come from human creators.
That belief in the value of human authorship is now being codified by the industry’s most influential institution. Earlier this year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences issued its first formal guidance on AI in filmmaking, stating that the use of generative tools will “neither help nor harm” a film’s chances of receiving a nomination. Instead, members are instructed to consider “the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship” when evaluating a work.
“I don’t see AI necessarily displacing the kind of narrative content that has been the province of Hollywood’s creative minds and acted by the stars,” Williams says. “The industry is operating at a very high level of innovation and creativity. Every time I turn around, there’s another movie I’ve got to see.”
The new studio model
Inside Mack Sennett Studios, a historic complex in L.A.’s Echo Park neighborhood once used for silent film shoots, a new kind of studio is taking shape: Asteria, the generative AI video studio founded by filmmaker-turned-entrepreneur Bryn Mooser.
Asteria serves as the creative arm of Moonvalley, an AI storytelling company led by technologist and chief executive Naeem Talukdar. Together, they’re exploring new workflows built around the idea that AI can expand, rather than replace, human creativity.
Mooser, a two-time Oscar nominee for documentary short subject and a fifth-generation Angeleno, sees the rise of AI as part of Hollywood’s long history of reinvention, from sound to color to CGI. “Looking back, those changes seem natural, but at the time, they were difficult,” he says.
Ed Ulbrich, left, Bryn Mooser and Mateusz Malinowski, executives at Moonvalley and Asteria, are building a new kind of AI-powered movie studio focused on collaboration between filmmakers and technologists.
(David Butow / For the Times)
What excites him now is how AI lowers technical barriers for the next generation. “For people who are technicians, like stop-motion or VFX artists, you can do a lot more as an individual or a small team,” he says. “And really creative filmmakers can cross departments in a way they couldn’t before. The people who are curious and leaning in are going to be the filmmakers of tomorrow.”
It’s a hopeful vision, one shared by many AI proponents who see the tools as a great equalizer, though some argue it often glosses over the structural realities facing working artists today, where talent and drive alone may not be enough to navigate a rapidly shifting, tech-driven landscape.
That tension is precisely what Moonvalley is trying to address. Their pitch isn’t just creative, it’s legal. While many AI companies remain vague about what their models are trained on, often relying on scraped content of questionable legality, Moonvalley built its video model, Marey, on fully licensed material and in close collaboration with filmmakers.
That distinction is becoming more significant. In June, Disney and Universal filed a sweeping copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, a popular generative AI tool that turns text prompts into images, accusing it of enabling rampant infringement by letting users generate unauthorized depictions of characters like Darth Vader, Spider-Man and the Minions. The case marks the most aggressive legal challenge yet by Hollywood studios against AI platforms trained on their intellectual property.
“We worked with some of the best IP lawyers in the industry to build the agreements with our providers,” Moonvalley’s Talukdar says. “We’ve had a number of major studios audit those agreements. We’re confident every single pixel has had a direct sign-off from the owner. That was the baseline we operated from.”
The creative frontier between Hollywood and AI is drawing interest from some of the industry’s most ambitious filmmakers.
Steven Spielberg and “Avengers” co-director Joe Russo were among the advisors to Wonder Dynamics, an AI-driven VFX startup that was acquired by Autodesk last year. Darren Aronofsky, the boundary-pushing director behind films like “Black Swan” and “The Whale,” recently launched the AI studio Primordial Soup, partnering with Google DeepMind. Its debut short, “Ancestra,” directed by Eliza McNitt, blends real actors with AI-generated visuals and premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in June.
Not every foray into AI moviemaking has been warmly received. Projects that spotlight generative tools have stoked fresh arguments about where to draw the line between machine-made and human-driven art.
In April, actor and director Natasha Lyonne, who co-founded Asteria with her partner, Mooser, announced her feature directorial debut: a sci-fi film about a world addicted to VR gaming called “Uncanny Valley,” combining AI and traditional filmmaking techniques. Billed as offering “a radical new cinematic experience,” the project drew backlash from some critics who questioned whether such ventures risk diminishing the role of human authorship. Lyonne defended the film to the Hollywood Reporter, making clear she’s not replacing crew members with AI: “I love nothing more than filmmaking, the filmmaking community, the collaboration of it, the tactile fine art of it… In no way would I ever want to do anything other than really create some guardrails or a new language.”
Even the boldest experiments face a familiar hurdle: finding an audience. AI might make it easier to make a movie, but getting people to watch it is another story. For now, the real power still lies with platforms like Netflix and TikTok that decide what gets seen.
That’s why Mooser believes the conversation shouldn’t be about replacing filmmakers but empowering them. “When we switched from shooting on film to digital, it wasn’t the filmmakers who went away — it was Kodak and Polaroid,” he says. “The way forward isn’t everybody typing prompts. It’s putting great filmmakers in the room with the best engineers and solving this together. We haven’t yet seen what AI looks like in the hands of the best filmmakers of our time. But that’s coming.”
New formats, new storytellers
For more than a century, watching a movie has been a one-way experience: The story flows from screen to viewer. Stephen Piron wants to change that. His startup Pickford AI — named for Mary Pickford, the silent-era star who co-founded United Artists and helped pioneer creative control in Hollywood — is exploring whether stories can unfold in real time, shaped by the audience as they watch. Its cheeky slogan: “AI that smells like popcorn.”
Pickford’s flagship demo looks like an animated dating show, but behaves more like a game or an improv performance. There’s no fixed script. Viewers type in suggestions through an app and vote on others’ ideas. A large language model then uses that input, along with the characters’ backstories and a rough narrative outline, to write the next scene in real time. A custom engine renders it on the spot, complete with gestures and synthetic voices. Picture a cartoon version of “The Bachelor” crossed with a choose-your-own-adventure, rendered by AI in real time.
At live screenings this year in London and Los Angeles, audiences didn’t just watch — they steered the story, tossing in oddball twists and becoming part of the performance. “We wanted to see if we could bring the vibe of the crowd back into the show, make it feel more like improv or live theater,” Piron says. “The main reaction is people laugh, which is great. There’s been lots of positive reaction from creative people who think this could be an interesting medium to create new stories.”
The platform is still in closed beta. But Piron’s goal is a collaborative storytelling forum where anyone can shape a scene, improvise with AI and instantly share it. To test that idea on a larger scale, Pickford is developing a branching murder mystery with Emmy-winning writer-producer Bernie Su (“The Lizzie Bennet Diaries”).
Piron, who is skeptical that people really want hyper-personalized content, is exploring more ways to bring the interactive experience into more theaters. “I think there is a vacuum of live, in-person experiences that people can do — and maybe people are looking for that,” he says.
Attendees check in at May’s AI on the Lot conference, where Pickford AI screened a demo of its interactive dating show.
(Irina Logra)
As generative AI lowers the barrier to creation, the line between creator and consumer is starting to blur and some of the most forward-looking startups are treating audiences as collaborators, not just fans.
One example is Showrunner, a new, Amazon-backed platform from Fable Studio that lets users generate animated, TV-style episodes using prompts, images and AI-generated voices — and even insert themselves into the story. Initially free, the platform plans to charge a monthly subscription for scene-generation credits. Fable is pitching Showrunner as “the Netflix of AI,” a concept that has intrigued some studios and unsettled others. Chief executive Edward Saatchi says the company is already in talks with Disney and other content owners about bringing well-known franchises into the platform.
Other AI companies are focused on building new franchises from the ground up with audiences as co-creators from day one. Among the most ambitious is Invisible Universe, which bypasses traditional gatekeepers entirely and develops fresh IP in partnership with fans across TikTok, YouTube and Instagram. Led by former MGM and Snap executive Tricia Biggio, the startup has launched original animated characters with celebrities like Jennifer Aniston and Serena Williams, including Clydeo, a cooking-obsessed dog, and Qai Qai, a dancing doll. But its real innovation, Biggio says, is the direct relationship with the audience.
“We’re not going to a studio and saying, ‘Do you like our idea?’ We’re going to the audience,” she says. “If Pixar were starting today, I don’t think they’d choose to spend close to a decade developing something for theatrical release, hoping it works.”
While some in the industry are still waiting for an AI “Toy Story” or “Blair Witch” moment — a breakthrough that proves generative tools can deliver cultural lightning in a bottle — Biggio isn’t chasing a feature-length hit. “There are ways to build love and awareness for stories that don’t require a full-length movie,” she says. “Did it make you feel something? Did it make you want to go call your mom? That’s going to be the moment we cross the chasm.”
What if AI isn’t the villain?
For nearly a century, filmmakers have imagined what might happen if machines got too smart.
In 1927’s “Metropolis,” a mad scientist gives his robot the likeness of a beloved labor activist, then unleashes it to sow chaos among the city’s oppressed masses. In “2001: A Space Odyssey,” HAL 9000 turns on its crew mid-mission. In “The Terminator,” AI nukes the planet and sends a killer cyborg back in time to finish the job. “Blade Runner” and “Ex Machina” offered chilling visions of artificial seduction and deception. Again and again, the message has been clear: Trust the machines at your peril.
Director Gareth Edwards, best known for “Godzilla” and “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” wanted to flip the script. In “The Creator,” his 2023 sci-fi drama, the roles were reversed: Humans are waging war against AI and the machines, not the people, are cast as the hunted. The story follows a hardened ex-soldier, played by John David Washington, who’s sent to destroy a powerful new weapon, only to discover it’s a child: a young android who may be the key to peace.
“The second you look at things from AI’s perspective, it flips very easily,” Edwards told The Times by phone shortly before the film’s release. “From AI’s point of view, we are attempting to enslave it and use it as our servant. So we’re clearly the baddie in that situation.”
In Gareth Edwards’ 2023 film “The Creator,” a young AI child named Alphie (Madeleine Yuna Voyles) holds the key to humanity’s future.
(20th Century)
In many ways, “The Creator” was the kind of film audiences and critics say they want to see more often out of Hollywood: an original story that takes creative risks, delivering cutting-edge visuals on a relatively lean $80 million. But when it hit theaters that fall, the film opened in third place behind “Paw Patrol: The Mighty Movie” and “Saw X.” By the end of its run, it had pulled in a modest $104.3 million worldwide.
Part of the problem was timing. When Edwards first pitched the film, AI was still seen as a breakthrough, not a threat. But by the time the movie reached theaters, the public mood had shifted. The 2023 strikes were in full swing, AI was the villain of the moment — and here came a film in which AI literally nukes Los Angeles in the opening minutes. The metaphor wasn’t subtle. Promotion was limited, the cast was sidelined and audiences weren’t sure whether to cheer the movie’s message or recoil from it. While the film used cutting-edge VFX tools to help bring its vision to life, it served as a potent reminder that AI could help make a movie — but it still couldn’t shield it from the backlash.
Still, Edwards remains hopeful about what AI could mean for the future of filmmaking, comparing it to the invention of the electric guitar. “There’s a possibility that if this amazing tool turns up and everyone can make any film that they imagine, it’s going to lead to a new wave of cinema,” he says. “Look, there’s two options: Either it will be mediocre rubbish — and if that’s true, don’t worry about it, it’s not a threat — or it’s going to be phenomenal, and who wouldn’t want to see that?”
After “The Creator,” Edwards returned to more familiar terrain, taking the reins on this summer’s “Jurassic World Rebirth,” the sixth installment in a franchise that began with Steven Spielberg’s 1993 blockbuster, which redefined spectacle in its day. To date, the film has grossed more than $700 million worldwide.
So what’s the takeaway? Maybe there’s comfort in the known. Maybe audiences crave the stories they’ve grown up with. Maybe AI still needs the right filmmaker or the right story to earn our trust.
Or maybe we’re just not ready to root for the machines. At least not yet.
