cracks

“The Conjuring: Last Rites” gave movie theaters a needed jolt over the weekend with a much better than expected domestic opening of $84 million and a global take of $194 million, a franchise best and the latest success for Warner Bros. and its New Line Cinema banner.

But it will take more than supernatural scares to ease Hollywood’s jitters after a weak summer movie season that exposed more challenges facing the traditional film industry.

Ticket sales fell slightly from last year’s summer season, which for the movie business spans from the first weekend of May through Labor Day. Movies grossed $3.67 billion in the U.S. and Canada this summer, down 0.2% from the same period in 2024, according to data from Comscore. More importantly, it’s still down from the pre-pandemic norm of about $4 billion, a disappointing result given that summer typically accounts for about 40% of annual grosses.

If you account for inflation, it’s even worse. Adjusting for today’s dollars, summer revenue was down 34% from 2019, meaning theater attendance was weaker than the topline revenue stats suggest. With actual attendance still impaired compared with the days before COVID-19, there’s a growing sense that the industry’s fears have come true: Audience habits have changed, and they’re not going back.

The problem wasn’t a lack of movies compared with last year. The effects of the 2023 writers’ and actors’ strikes have dissipated by now.

Rather, the issue was a shortage of big studio movies that audiences really wanted to see. The biggest release was Disney’s “Lilo & Stitch” remake, which collected $424 million domestically. There was nothing like last summer’s “Inside Out 2” or “Deadpool & Wolverine,” which both generated more than $600 million in North America.

The problem of the shrinking overall audience could be due to multiple factors.

In particular, theater owners blame the shrinking of the theatrical window — the period of time a new movie is held back from home video after its big screen debut — to roughly 45 days from the previously standard 90 days. Audiences know they don’t have to wait long before a new movie becomes available in their living room. That encourages them to save their money for only the biggest, Imax-worthy spectacles. The growing influence of Imax and premium large format screening may exacerbate that trend, as audiences choose between paying extra for a better “experience,” or just waiting to see “F1 The Movie” on their couch.

There were plenty of sequels and reboots, but those often performed worse than prior installments, indicating that audiences were less enthusiastic about seeing another Marvel movie or rampaging dino feature. “Jurassic World: Rebirth” made $861 million globally, which was big, but still the series’ smallest outing since 2001’s “Jurassic Park III.” Warner Bros.’ “Superman” collected a healthy $614 million, but that was still less than 2013’s “Man of Steel” ($670 million).

Superheroes didn’t come flying to the rescue. Marvel’s “Thunderbolts” put up a modest $382 million while “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” opened strong but collapsed in subsequent weeks for a total of $511 million worldwide, a middling outcome for the Disney-owned comic book universe. No wonder studios are increasingly looking at video games as a source of intellectual property for movie adaptations, as my colleague Sam Masunaga recently wrote. After all, Generation Alpha’s list of favorite franchises is dominated by video game-related titles, according to a recent National Research Group report.

Another threat emerged as international audiences appeared to sour on some U.S. blockbusters. “Superman” and “Fantastic Four” grossed less abroad than they did at home, which is an unusual result for big-budget action flicks.

It’s not clear why, but some explanations have been floated. China is no longer the reliable source of revenue that it once was, as audiences increasingly favor local-language productions. Some speculate that America’s diminished standing abroad has contributed to audience fatigue. The quintessential Americanness of the Superman brand is also widely believed to be a factor in that film’s underperformance outside the U.S.

Original animation struggled, as Pixar fielded its worst opening weekend ever with “Elio.” To add insult to injury, Sony Pictures Animation’s “KPop Demon Hunters” became a cultural phenomenon, but only after first launching on Netflix.

The rest of the year has some major releases, but they’re not expected to bring the business back to full strength. September is usually a slow month for moviegoing, “Last Rites” notwithstanding. Disney’s “Zootopia 2,” Universal’s “Wicked: For Good” and James Cameron’s “Avatar: Fire and Ash” will probably do huge business. But while individual films can do well, the overall picture isn’t so rosy.

Stuff we wrote

Number of the week

Artificial intelligence company Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to authors and publishers to settle a lawsuit that accused the company of illegally using written work to train its chatbot Claude.

The topline figure is the largest known settlement for a copyright case, equating to $3,000 per work for an estimated 500,000 books, The Times’ Queenie Wong reported.

But the case was not an outright win for authors worried about AI being trained on their published material. Far from it.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco ruled in June that Anthropic’s use of the books to train the AI models constituted “fair use,” meaning it wasn’t illegal. Fair use is a doctrine that allows for the limited use of copyrighted materials without permission in certain cases, such as teaching, criticism and news reporting. It’s an essential part of AI companies’ defense against copyright infringement claims.

The real problem for Anthropic was that the startup had illegally downloaded millions of books through online libraries. So the piracy was the true sin in this case, not the training of AI on books without permission.

Anthropic pirated at least 7 million books from Books3, Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror, online libraries containing unauthorized copies of copyrighted books, to train its software, according to the judge. However, it also bought millions of print copies in bulk and scanned them into digital and machine-readable forms, which Alsup found to be in the bounds of fair use.

Film shoots

Finally …

Listen: Zach Top’s “Ain’t in It for My Health,” for throwback country goodness.

Read: Amy Nicholson’s review of “The Wizard of Oz” at Sphere in Las Vegas.

South Africa’s foreign policy has traditionally rested on three pillars: human rights advocacy, multilateralism, and solidarity with the Global South. Post-apartheid, Pretoria positioned itself as a mediator in global conflicts, a champion of African interests, and a voice against imperialism. However, under Ramaphosa’s administration, this identity appears blurred. The guiding principles remain on paper, but in practice, foreign policy decisions often seem reactive, inconsistent, and vulnerable to internal political pressures. This disconnect between ideals and implementation is where the cracks begin to show.

South Africa’s foreign policy under President Cyril Ramaphosa presents a contradictory and increasingly incoherent landscape. While the country once proudly stood on the global stage as a principled voice of moral authority, particularly in the post-apartheid era, recent trends reveal a foreign policy marred by inconsistency, political improvisation, and a diminishing institutional role for the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO). These developments expose both the fine cracks and widening chasms in South Africa’s diplomatic posture.

South Africa’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict has been one of its most vocal and consistent foreign policy markers in recent years. Ramaphosa’s government has taken a firm stance in condemning Israeli actions in Gaza, even leading the charge at the International Court of Justice to accuse Israel of genocide. This has resonated with domestic constituencies, particularly those with historical sympathies for the Palestinian cause. However, critics argue that this moral clarity is selectively applied. South Africa’s silence or caution on atrocities in other regions, such as Xinjiang and the Tigray conflict, undermines the moral authority it seeks to project to the world.

Another troubling issue has been South Africa’s muted and inconsistent response to international propaganda regarding so-called “white genocide” or the “murder of white farmers.” This narrative, often amplified by far-right groups abroad, misrepresents rural crime in South Africa and distorts complex socio-economic realities for political gain. Yet, Ramaphosa’s administration has not proactively countered these claims with a sustained international communication strategy. The absence of a clear and robust rebuttal not only damages the country’s image but also allows disinformation to fester in influential circles abroad.

A more subtle but revealing fault line lies in how foreign policy is shaped to accommodate powerful economic actors. South Africa’s reported willingness to bend B-BBEE (Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment) rules to allow Elon Musk’s Starlink to operate raises deeper questions. On the one hand, there is an understandable desire to expand connectivity and embrace digital innovation. On the other, such decisions appear to signal that policy can be suspended or softened when big business is involved. This flexibility undermines the credibility of domestic policy frameworks and opens South Africa up to accusations of inconsistency or even opportunism.

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), once a hub of strategic thinking and diplomacy, now seems increasingly peripheral. Under Ramaphosa, DIRCO has struggled to assert itself as the authoritative voice on foreign policy. The lack of clarity in positions, delays in diplomatic appointments, and an overall sense of drift reflect a department in decline. This vacuum has created space for a troubling trend: the proliferation of unofficial and undisciplined commentary on foreign policy matters by ANC leaders such as Fikile Mbalula, whose portfolio is far-fetched from foreign policy.

In recent years, it has become common for various ANC figures, some holding no official position in international affairs, to make bold and, at times, incendiary statements on global matters. Whether it’s views on BRICS, Russia’s war in Ukraine, or Israel-Palestine, these statements often contradict each other or official government policy. This free-for-all has consequences. It undermines diplomatic coherence, confuses international partners, and erodes confidence in Pretoria’s reliability as a global actor.

At best, South Africa’s current foreign policy could be described as fragmented realism wrapped in rhetorical idealism. At worst, it is ad hoc, domestically driven, and lacking a unifying vision. It is unclear whether Ramaphosa’s government is intentionally pursuing a flexible and pragmatic foreign policy or whether it is simply reacting to events without a strong guiding compass. The blurred lines between party, government, and department make it difficult to distinguish strategic priorities from political expediency.

If South Africa hopes to retain its voice on the international stage, it must begin by consolidating its foreign policy machinery. DIRCO must be empowered, not sidelined. Policy statements must be consistent, not contradictory. Foreign engagement must be principled, not selectively moralistic or economically opportunistic. The world is watching South Africa’s foreign policy circles with keen interest; it is confused by what it sees. The time to fix these cracks, both fine and foundational, is now.

South Africa cannot afford to be a bystander amid the seismic shifts shaping global politics. In an era marked by rising geopolitical tensions, great power rivalries, and contested norms, a passive or ambiguous foreign policy amounts to self-marginalization. South Africa’s historical legacy as a nation that transitioned from apartheid through global solidarity and principled diplomacy demands that it play a more assertive role in international affairs.

A firm, values-based stance in global politics not only reaffirms South Africa’s own agency but also sets a precedent for the African continent. Africa, often treated as a passive recipient of global outcomes, needs bold leadership among its middle powers. By taking principled and consistent positions on international issues from human rights to economic justice, South Africa can embolden its neighbors to speak with greater unity and confidence on the global stage.

In this context, South Africa’s role is not just national—it is continental. A coherent and courageous foreign policy can catalyze a broader African voice in global governance, helping to redefine Africa’s place not as a bargaining chip in great power politics, but as a serious actor in shaping a fairer, more multipolar world order.

Donald Trump’s coalition has always been a Frankenstein’s monster — stitched together from parts that were never meant to coexist.

Consider the contradictions: fast-food fanatics hanging out with juice-cleanse truthers chanting “Make America Healthy Again” between ivermectin doses, immigration hardliners mixing with business elites who are “tough on the border” until they need someone to clean their toilets or pick their strawberries, and hawkish interventionists spooning with America Firsters.

Dogs and cats living together — mass hysteria — you know the bit.

Navigating these differences was always going to be tricky. But in recent days — particularly following Israel’s bombing of Iran, an operation widely believed to have been greenlit by Trump — the tension has reached new highs.

Signs of strain were already emerging earlier this year. We got early hints of discord during the “Liberation Day” tariff fiasco — where Trump declared an “emergency” and imposed steep tariffs, only to suspend them after they riled markets and spooked his business-friendly backers.

The tariff blunder was a harbinger of things to come. But it was the House’s passage of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” — a budgetary monstrosity that self-respecting Freedom Caucus deficit hawks should’ve torched on principle — that truly exposed the rift.

Enter Elon Musk, the billionaire tech bro and MAGA ally, who publicly trashed both the bill and Trump in a flurry of posts. He even referenced Trump’s name reportedly appearing in Jeffrey Epstein’s files — a claim that, though unverified, was tantamount to “going nuclear.”

But before there was enough time to say “Republican civil war,” Musk deleted his mean tweets, adding to the evidence that this is still Trump’s party; that modern Republicans view deficits the way the rest of us view library late fees — technically real, but nothing to lose sleep over; and that ketamine is a hell of a drug.

The next internecine squabble was over immigration. Trump proudly ran on rounding ’em all up. Mass deportations! Load up the buses! But then it turned out that his rich buddies in Big Ag and Big Hospitality weren’t so keen on losing some of their best employees.

So Trump floated a carve out to protect some “very good, long time workers” in those particular industries.

It even started to look like some exemptions were coming — until his Department of Homeland Security said “no mas.” (The raids will presumably continue until the next time a farmer or hotelier complains to Trump in a meeting.)

But the real fissure involves some prominent America First non-interventionists who thought Trump was elected to end the “forever wars.”

In case you missed it, Israel has been going after Iran’s nuclear capabilities with the same gusto that Trump aide Stephen Miller applies to deporting Guatemalan landscapers, and Trump is all in, calling for an “unconditional surrender” of the Iranian regime.

This didn’t sit well with everyone in the MAGA coalition.

“I think we’re going to see the end of American empire,” warned Tucker Carlson on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast. “But it’s also going to end, I believe, Trump’s presidency — effectively end it — and so that’s why I’m saying this.”

And Carlson (co-founder of the Daily Caller, where I worked) didn’t stop there. “The real divide isn’t between people who support Israel and those who support Iran or the Palestinians,” he tweeted. “It’s between warmongers and peacemakers.”

Then he named names, alleging that Fox’s Sean Hannity, radio firebrand Mark Levin, media titan Rupert Murdoch and billionaire Trump donors Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson were among the warmongers.

Trump hit back, calling Tucker “kooky” and repeating his new mantra: “IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.”

It’s tempting to see this spat as the beginning of a schism — a break that might finally yield a coherent Trump Doctrine, at least, as it pertains to foreign policy (possibly returning the GOP to a more Reaganite or internationalist party). But that misunderstands the nature of Trump and his coalition.

These coalitional disagreements over public policy are real and important. But they mostly exist at the elite level. The actual Trump voter base? They care about only one thing: Donald Trump.

And Trump resists ideological straitjackets.

If Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu rubs him the wrong way next week (as he did by congratulating Joe Biden in 2020), or if Israel’s military campaign starts slipping in the polls, Trump could flip faster than a gymnast on Red Bull.

There is no coherent philosophy. No durable ideology. What we’re watching is a guy making it up as he goes along — often basing decisions on his “gut” or the opinion of the last guy who bent his ear.

So if you’re looking for a Trump Doctrine to explain it all — keep looking. There isn’t one.

There’s only Trump.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”