studio

There’s no shortage of bands commemorating their glory days as decade anniversaries of albums fly by. Yet few landmark releases feel not only fresh but forward-thinking 20 years after they were recorded. My Morning Jacket stumbled onto this kind of brilliance in October 2004 when it released its fourth studio album “Z.” Across 10 tracks of lush, euphoria-driven rock ‘n’ roll, the band captured a notable tone shift in its sound that melded Southern rock, haunting folk, psychedelic soul laced with jam band energy. It’s a set of songs that still make up a huge chunk of the bands live show. In September the band performed the album in its entirety to a sold-out Hollywood Palladium for its 20th anniversary.

“We still play these songs all the time,” said frontman and principal songwriter Jim James in a recent conversation. “So it’s not like we broke up after we released ‘Z’ and then we got back together 20 years later to play these songs, and it’s such a trip. We’ve been playing them nonstop for 20 years.”

Shortly after the release of its 10th studio album “is,” the band put out a deluxe reissue of “Z” that includes four B-sides and a whole album’s worth of demo versions of songs like “Wordless Chorus,” “Off the Record” and Dodante. Recently James spoke to The Times about the enduring power of “Z” and the joy of going back to the beginning of the album’s origins to give himself and his fans a new appreciation for the groundbreaking sound the band created.

The rerelease of “Z” was prefaced earlier this year with a full-album show at the Palladium. What was it like revisiting the album on stage first before it came out (again) on vinyl and streaming?

This is our fourth album now to hit the 20-year mark. So we’ve got some experience now doing these album shows. And it’s funny because some of the earlier albums we don’t play all the songs from them so we had to go back and relearn a lot of songs. But the songs from “Z” we pretty much play all the songs all the time. So it’s pretty hilarious how it involved no effort. It just involved playing them in that order of the sequence of the album. But we kind of laughed about that. We’re like, man, we don’t really even have to do any research or anything. We were all kind of reflecting just on how grateful we are that we like playing all the songs still. It’s such a great feeling to play songs for 20 years and never really get tired of them. People still want to hear them and there’s still excitement there, and they still feel fresh. It’s really a beautiful thing.

This was your first album using an outside producer. What was that like for you as the songwriter to step in the studio with John Leckie to help you realize your vision with “Z”?

It was so great, because I really needed somebody who could work with me and not let our egos clash too much. John was just really great about coming in and respecting what I wanted to do, but also voicing his opinion and what he liked and what he didn’t like and when he thought we could do better. And it was just really so refreshing and so good for us to have him there. I mean, his track record speaks for itself, he’s somebody who you can trust right off the bat, just because of all the things they’ve done in the past. He’s such a soft-spoken gentleman but he also has this hilarious, brutal honesty about him, which was always really great.

Your lineup had also changed between the previous album “It Still Moves” and “Z” — adding keyboard player Bo Koster and guitarist Carl Broemel who are still in the band today. So was that like stepping in the studio with the “new guys” for the first time?

It was really nerve-racking and really exciting all at once. We had some touring experience under our belt with Bo and Carl, so we kind of knew that it was working out on that level, but we’d never really recorded before, so it was a real test for all of us. And I think we all knew that. So everybody brought their A game to the session and we took it really seriously, but we also had a lot of fun and just really kind of got to know each other. That was good to do that out in the middle of nowhere, out there in the Catskills, up at the studio. It gave us some time to really bond without a lot of the real-world stuff coming in or other people coming in. So I think that was really important, that we did it that way.

Do you remember what song came out of the sessions first?

“It Beats 4 U” was the first one, because that was one we had already played live before we started recording. So I think that was the first song that we started messing with. But I think they all were kind of coming to life around the same time. So by the time we got in there to start unpacking them, I had already written them and kind of made the demos of them and stuff.

It’s great that you included so many demo versions of your songs on this rerelease. What was the process like of locating these, sifting through and sequencing which ones you wanted to put on the album?

Well, I love demos for a lot of my favorite bands — I love it when I get to hear the demos from the albums. So I’m always saving all that stuff; with my own stuff I’m always compiling all the demos, because that’s half the fun to me. Because sometimes you get this just like a beautiful glimpse into the song. Quite often, I end up liking the demo more than I like the actual album, song because you get a whole, whole new view of it. It’s also interesting when you’re sequencing for vinyl, because you don’t have unlimited time so you kind of got to pick and choose, and that kind of forces you to just choose the best. There’s a whole other round of band demos and then there were my demos, so there were a lot of things to choose from. But it kind of helps me to look at it in vinyl format. There’s still something about the vinyl time limit that helps with quality control. Just kind of pick the ones that I feel are most effective and then try and make a fun sequence so that hopefully, if somebody’s into them, it’s kind of like you get a bonus album that you can listen to.

We had four true songs, B-sides, that we really love too, that weren’t demos. So that was really nice to finally get those out, because those had been on different soundtracks. And then one wasn’t even released. So I don’t think that those weren’t even on streaming or anything for years and years. So it’s really cool to have those out kind of everywhere now, because I’ve always liked all those songs and been proud of those songs too. And I think most bands know the feeling of you know when you make a record. Sometimes songs just don’t fit the record, even if you still love the songs.

MMJ during the “Z” era.

(Sam Erickson)

Were you playing any of those live at the point where you released the album the first round, or did you shelve them for later?

We’ve always played “Where to Begin” live — off and on. We’ve also tried “Chills” a couple times, and I think we did “How Could I Know” a couple times. We’ve never played “The Devil’s Peanut Butter,” we kinda forgot that one existed until this whole [album rerelease] process started, and I found that song again. So we’ll probably play that one somewhere out on the next leg.

Was this process something that you enjoy doing, like, in terms of your how to, sort of like, reexamine an album?

I really love it because I just feel so grateful that anybody even gives a s–, you know? I mean, so there’s that part of me that’s just so grateful to even still be in the game, talking about this. But beyond that, it’s really cool for me because it’s like jumping in a time machine and going back and looking at that point in my life and getting perspective on where I am now, and seeing how I’ve grown and asking “where have I changed? Where have I not changed?” I look back and with all of these albums as they come up to this 20-year mark, and I see I’ve always been really mean and hard on myself, on Jim, but I know that Jim was doing the best he could at each time. That’s the one thing I’ve always kind of been able to see, to get myself through, to not be too hard on myself. I know I was giving it everything I had, so whether I would change things about it as I am today or not — we all look back on the past, and maybe there’s things we’d do differently, but it gives me a lot of comfort to know that I was trying as hard as I could, and all the guys in the band were trying as hard as they could. It really makes me feel proud of us for just putting in the time and effort.

A year after tech firm OpenAI roiled Hollywood with the release of its Sora AI video tool, Chief Executive Sam Altman was back — with a potentially groundbreaking update.

Unlike the generic images Sora could initially create, the new program allows users to upload videos of real people and put them into AI-generated environments, complete with sound effects and dialogue.

In one video, a synthetic Michael Jackson takes a selfie video with an image of “Breaking Bad” star Bryan Cranston. In another, a likeness of SpongeBob SquarePants speaks out from behind the White House’s Oval Office desk.

“Excited to launch Sora 2!” Altman wrote on social media platform X on Sept. 30. “Video models have come a long way; this is a tremendous research achievement.”

But the enthusiasm wasn’t shared in Hollywood, where the new AI tools have created a swift backlash. At the core of the dispute is who controls the copyrighted images and likenesses of actors and licensed characters — and how much they should be compensated for their use in AI models.

The Motion Picture Assn. trade group didn’t mince words.

“OpenAI needs to take immediate and decisive action to address this issue,” Chairman Charles Rivkin said in a statement Monday. “Well-established copyright law safeguards the rights of creators and applies here.”

By the end of the week, multiple agencies and unions, including SAG-AFTRA, chimed in with similar statements, marking a rare moment of consensus in Hollywood and putting OpenAI on the defensive.

“We’re engaging directly with studios and rightsholders, listening to feedback, and learning from how people are using Sora 2,” Varun Shetty, OpenAI’s vice president of media partnerships, said in a statement. “Many are creating original videos and excited about interacting with their favorite characters, which we see as an opportunity for rightsholders to connect with fans and share in that creativity.”

For now, the skirmish between well-capitalized OpenAI and the major Hollywood studios and agencies appears to be only just the beginning of a bruising legal fight that could shape the future of AI use in the entertainment business.

“The question is less about if the studios will try to assert themselves, but when and how,” said Anthony Glukhov, senior associate at law firm Ramo, of the clash between Silicon Valley and Hollywood over AI. “They can posture all they want; but at the end of the day, there’s going to be two titans battling it out.”

Before it became the focus of ire in the creative community, OpenAI quietly tried to make inroads into the film and TV business.

The company’s executives went on a charm offensive last year. They reached out to key players in the entertainment industry — including Walt Disney Co. — about potential areas for collaboration and trying to assuage concerns about its technology.

This year, the San Francisco-based AI startup took a more assertive approach.

Before unveiling Sora 2 to the general public, OpenAI executives had conversations with some studios and talent agencies, putting them on notice that they need to explicitly declare which pieces of intellectual property — including licensed characters — were being opted-out of having their likeness depicted on the AI platform, according to two sources familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment. Actors would be included in Sora 2 unless they opted out, the people said.

OpenAI disputes the claim and says that it was always the company’s intent to give actors and other public figures control over how their likeness is used.

The response was immediate.

Beverly Hills talent agency WME, which represents stars such as Michael B. Jordan and Oprah Winfrey, told OpenAI its actions were unacceptable, and that all of its clients would be opting out.

Creative Artists Agency and United Talent Agency also argued that their clients had the right to control and be compensated for their likenesses.

Studios, including Warner Bros., echoed the point.

“Decades of enforceable copyright law establishes that content owners do not need to ‘opt out’ to prevent infringing uses of their protected IP,” Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement. “As technology progresses and platforms advance, the traditional principles of copyright protection do not change.”

Unions, including SAG-AFTRA — whose members were already alarmed over the recent appearance of a fake, AI-generated composite named Tilly Norwood — also expressed alarm.

“OpenAI’s decision to honor copyright only through an ‘opt-out’ model threatens the economic foundation of our entire industry and underscores the stakes in the litigation currently working through the courts,” newly elected President Sean Astin and National Executive Director Duncan Crabtree-Ireland said in a statement.

The dispute underscores a clash of two very different cultures. On one side is the brash, Silicon Valley “move fast and break things” ethos, where asking for forgiveness is seen as preferable to asking for permission. On the other is Hollywood’s eternal wariness over the effect of new technology, and its desire to retain control over increasingly valuable intellectual property rights.

“The difficulty, as we’ve seen, is balancing the capabilities with the prior rights owned by other people,” said Rob Rosenberg, a partner with law firm Moses and Singer LLP and a former Showtime Networks general counsel. “That’s what was driving the entire entertainment industry bonkers.”

Amid the outcry, Sam Altman posted on his blog days after the Sora 2 launch that the company would be giving more granular controls to rights holders and is working on a way to compensate them for video generation.

OpenAI said it has guardrails to block the generation of well-known characters and a team of reviewers who are taking down material that doesn’t follow its updated policy. Rights holders can also request removal of content.

The strong pushback from the creative community could be a strategy to force OpenAI into entering licensing agreements for the content they need, legal experts said.

Existing law is clear — a copyright holder has full control over their copyrighted material, said Ray Seilie, entertainment litigator at law firm Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir.

“It’s not your job to go around and tell other people to stop using it,” he said. “If they use it, they use it at their own risk.”

Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery have previously sued AI firms MiniMax and Midjourney, accusing them of copyright infringement.

One challenge is figuring out a way that fairly compensates talent and rights holders. Several people who work within the entertainment industry ecosystem said they don’t believe a flat fee works.

“Bring monetization that is not a one size fits all,” said Dan Neely, chief executive of Chicago-based Vermillio, which works with Hollywood talent and studios and protects how their likenesses and characters are used in AI. “That’s what will move the needle for talent and studios.”

Visiting journalist Nilesh Christopher contributed to this report.

Billionaire Larry Ellison ponied up the money for his family to acquire the controlling stake in Paramount two months ago, and the tech titan would need to write another huge check should Paramount buy Warner Bros. Discovery.

So, in Hollywood circles, the question has been: How involved is the elder Ellison in Paramount’s strategy and operations?

Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison said he speaks with his father every day, but he drew an important distinction:

“Look, I run the company day to day. Make no mistake about that,” David Ellison said Thursday at Bloomberg’s Screentime media conference in Hollywood, adding that his father had been a “phenomenal” mentor and “we couldn’t have a better relationship.”

“He is the largest shareholder in the business,” Ellison said. “What’s important for everybody to know is the way he approaches this is: How do we maximize value for our shareholders? … I think he’s best in the world for doing that.”

Since the Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners acquired Paramount in August, its stock is up more than 50%. Much of the run-up came last month after news leaked that Paramount was interested in acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN, TBS, Food Network and one of Hollywood’s most prolific film and television studios.

Ellison refused to comment on Paramount’s pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery or whether his team had already made a bid.

But he did shed light on the business strategy behind any pursuit, while trying to tamp down fears that another big merger would result in more cost-cutting, more job losses and a reduction in content spending.

“The way we approach everything is, first and foremost: What’s good for the talent community, what’s good for our shareholders and value creation, and what’s good for basically storytelling at large?” Ellison said. “We’re looking at actually producing more movies [and] more television series … because you need that content.”

Paramount staffers are bracing for a massive workforce reduction next month, part of the company’s goal of finding more than $2 billion in spending cuts.

But, since the takeover, Paramount’s Ellison has made a priority of beefing up relationships with talent through a series of big bets, including agreeing to pay $7.7 billion for media rights to UFC’s mixed martial arts events in the U.S. in a seven-year deal with TKO Group Holdings.

The company also invested in the construction of a Texas-based production hub for prolific “Yellowstone” creator Taylor Sheridan and agreed to pay $1.5 billion over five years for streaming rights for “South Park,” the Comedy Central cartoon. And Paramount lured Matt and Ross Duffer, who created “Stranger Things,” away from Netflix with an exclusive four-year television, streaming and film deal.

Earlier this week, Paramount spent $150 million to acquire Bari Weiss’ the Free Press news site, while also naming Weiss editor in chief of CBS News.

Warner Bros. Discovery, led by Chief Executive David Zaslav, also has declined to discuss Paramount’s interest, although people close to the company have suggested Zaslav would like to see bidding war.

No other studios have publicly expressed interest and, on Wednesday, Netflix Co-Chief Executive Greg Peters downplayed such speculation.

“We come from a deep heritage of being builders rather than buyers,” Peters said during a separate appearance at the Screentime conference, adding the track record for big mergers was not great.

But Wall Street widely expects more consolidation among entertainment firms.

“Ironically, it was David Zaslav last year who said that consolidation in the media business is important,” Ellison said, adding “there are a lot of options out there.” But he declined to elaborate.

Analysts have speculated that, beyond Paramount, few other media companies have financial firepower to pull off a bid. And Paramount has an “in” that several other media companies, including Brian Roberts’ Comcast, lack: a good relationship with President Trump and his administration.

Trump has called Larry Ellison a good friend. After David Ellison spoke with Trump at a June UFC fight, the previous managers of Paramount got traction in their efforts to settle Trump’s lawsuit over a “60 Minutes” interview last fall with Kamala Harris. Paramount paid $16 million in July to settle the suit and weeks later the Federal Communications Commission approved the Ellison takeover of Paramount.

“We have a good relationship with the administration,” David Ellison said.

Warner Bros. said Wednesday it will renew the contract for studio heads Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy after the two orchestrated a string of back-to-back hits at the box office.

The news is a notable reversal of fortune for the co-chairs and co-chief executives of Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group.

Only six months ago, the pair was on thin ice after a series of underperforming films, including Bong Joon Ho’s sci-fi thriller “Mickey 17” and the Robert De Niro-led mob movie “The Alto Knights.”

But the studio’s prospects dramatically changed in April with the release of “A Minecraft Movie,” which hauled in nearly $958 million worldwide. Shortly after, Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners” became a lasting hit at the box office, followed by “Final Destination Bloodlines,” “F1 The Movie” (which Warner Bros. distributed), James Gunn’s “Superman,” horror flick “Weapons” and the final installment of “The Conjuring.”

The studio recently released the Paul Thomas Anderson film “One Battle After Another,” which stars Leonardo DiCaprio, that is generating awards buzz and has so far grossed $106 million in global ticket sales.

In a memo to staff Wednesday, Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav credited Abdy and De Luca for the improved performance at the box office.

He touted the studio’s “balanced” slate with big blockbusters, films based on established intellectual property, horror movies and original works.

“Mike and Pam’s unwavering leadership and commitment to this business has been critical to our success this year,” he wrote. “We have a lot to be grateful for and much to celebrate including several of this year’s best reviewed movies, many of which have pierced the culture zeitgeist in profound ways while also delighting moviegoers around the world.”

Warner Bros. recently surpassed $4 billion at the global box office, the first time it has done so since 2019 and the first studio to reach this mark this year.

“We have the privilege to do this job because of the support and trust [Zaslav] has put in us, and in all of you,” De Luca and Abdy said in an internal note to employees. “We could not be more excited to be leading this team as we introduce an exciting slate of films in the coming years and continue making every film experience an event worthy of the Warner Bros. shield.”

On the day that Michele Mulroney was elected president of the Writers Guild of America West, writers won a significant victory. After writers protested ABC’s suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for days, the network brought the late-night show back on air.

“Our currency is words and stories, and the freedom to be able to express ourselves is really important, and so our members could not feel more strongly about this and of course we will be speaking out and lobbying and working in any way we can to protect this fundamental right,” Mulroney said in a recent interview.

Mulroney, formerly the WGA West vice president and a writer on the 2017 “Power Rangers” movie and 2011 film “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,” enters her new role at a time when the industry is facing significant challenges.

Those include major consolidation in the industry as studios look to cut costs and move TV and film production overseas because of hefty financial incentives. The climate has been tough for many writers who have struggled to find work after enduring a 148-day strike in 2023. After the walkout, writers did secure groundbreaking protections for AI in contracts, but they are still confronting AI models ripping off their work without compensation.

As the guild gears up for contract negotiations next year, Mulroney said she plans to build on earlier gains in AI and other areas, and aims to convince the studios to pay more for WGA’s health plans amid rising healthcare costs.

“It’s going to need some support from the companies,” Mulroney said. “Their drastic pullback in production and employment led to a pretty severe industry contraction that has contributed to some strain on our funds. We’ll be looking to them to help fix that with us.”

When asked about whether she thinks there is appetite among WGA’s members for another strike, Mulroney said “it’s way too early to speculate about that.”

“It’s really hard out there in the industry for all industry workers and for many of our members, but our members have shown time and again that when they have to, when it’s necessary, we are ready to fight for the contract we deserve,” Mulroney said.

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers declined to comment, but in an earlier statement said its members look forward to working with her “to address key issues for WGA writers and to strengthen our industry with fair, balanced solutions.”

A studio-side source who was not authorized to comment said that the WGA health plan faces “complex financial challenges that require a balanced approach to align with market norms and ensure long-term stability.”

To keep costs down, studios have been moving more productions to the U.K. and other countries offering significant financial incentives, shrinking job opportunities for entertainment industry workers in Southern California. Some have had to move out of state to look for jobs.

Unions including the WGA lobbied for California to boost annual funding for its film and TV tax credit program and succeeded in raising that amount to $750 million, from $330 million.

“This was a real bright spot of good news in an otherwise really bleak and tough time for our industry,” Mulroney said in an interview last week. “Now there needs to be federal action on this, too, so we’ll continue working with our allies to try to keep production in the U.S., and specifically in Hollywood, in Southern California.”

Mulroney declined to comment on President Trump’s renewed threat to impose a 100% tariff on foreign-made films.

Another big worry for writers has been artificial intelligence. The WGA has been outspoken about wanting studios to sue AI companies that writers say are taking their scripts for training AI models without their permission. Earlier this year, studios including Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery took legal action against AI companies over copyright infringement.

“We were glad to see some of the studios come off the sidelines and file lawsuits to protect their copyright from these AI companies that are stealing our members’ work to build their models,” she said. “I think we will probably be dealing with AI and wrangling that for the rest of our lives, right?”

Mulroney, 58, ran uncontested, receiving 2,241 votes or 87% of the votes cast, according to the union. CBS series “Tracker” writer and co-executive producer Travis Donnelly became vice president, and TV comedy show “Primo” executive producer Peter Murrieta became secretary-treasurer.

Mulroney grew up in the U.K., the daughter of a factory worker and a janitor. She’s served on the union’s board of directors for four terms and as an officer for six years prior to being elected president.

Mulroney’s background was in theater and theater directing, but she had always dabbled in writing. In her 20s, she worked in development for a British TV and film studio where she read a lot of scripts, which led her to think, “Maybe I could write one of those things.”

Her first writing gig was for a PBS children’s show called “Wishbone,” about a Jack Russell terrier who imagines himself as a character in literary classics. She’s been a screenwriter for 25 years and is based in West Hollywood with her husband and writing partner, Kieran.

Mulroney succeeds Meredith Stiehm, who led the union during the 2023 strike.

Kimmel coming back on air was a parting gift to Stiehm, said Mulroney, adding that the union is still watching the situation.

“We’re still monitoring,” Mulroney said. “I somehow doubt this is the last instance we’re going to see where censorship and free speech are going to be a topic.”

Showgirl breaks Spotify records as Taylor Swift’s most pre-saved album, highlighting her enduring popularity.

Taylor Swift has dropped her 12th studio album, The Life of a Showgirl, and already, it is the most pre-saved album ever on the Spotify streaming platform.

Showgirl even broke the record set last year by none other than Swift’s last album, The Tortured Poets Department.

The 35-year-old artist reunited with Swedish hitmakers Max Martin and Shellback for her hotly anticipated collection of bouncy pop songs.

“Tonight all these lives converge here, the mosaics of laughter and cocktails of tears … I can’t tell you how proud I am to share this with you, an album that just feels so right,” Swift posted on Instagram after the album’s release, along with photos of her in showgirl outfits.

The megastar described the album as a “self-portrait” and thanked Martin and Shellback, adding: “If you thought the big show was wild, perhaps you should come and take a look behind the curtain,” referring to her record-shattering Eras Tour.

The 12 tracks reveal a lighter, happier Swift – in love with her NFL Super Bowl champion fiance, Travis Kelce, and happy to have bought back her music catalogue.

Ahead of release, Swift said the new album “comes from the most infectiously joyful, wild, dramatic place I was in in my life”.

Fans will be combing through the lyrics and liner notes for “Easter eggs” – coded words and phrases that could reveal things about Swift’s life or future projects.

Walt Disney Co., Universal Pictures and Warner Bros. Discovery on Tuesday sued a Chinese artificial intelligence firm called MiniMax for copyright infringement, alleging its AI service generates iconic characters including Darth Vader, the Minions and Wonder Woman without the studios’ permission.

“MiniMax’s bootlegging business model and defiance of U.S. copyright law are not only an attack on Plaintiffs and the hard-working creative community that brings the magic of movies to life, but are also a broader threat to the American motion picture industry,” the companies said in their complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

The entertainment companies requested that MiniMax be restrained from further infringement. They are seeking damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work, as well as attorney fees and costs.

This is the latest round of copyright lawsuits that major studios have brought against AI companies over intellectual property concerns. In June, Disney and Universal Pictures sued AI firm Midjourney for copyright infringement. Earlier this month, Warner Bros. Discovery also sued Midjourney.

Shanghai-based MiniMax has a service called Hailuo AI, which is marketed as a “Hollywood studio in your pocket” and used characters including the Joker and Groot in its ads without the studios’ permission, the studios’ lawsuit said. Users can type in a text prompt requesting “Star Wars’” iconic character Yoda or DC Comics’ Superman, and Hailuo AI can pull up high quality and downloadable images or video of the character, according to the document.

“MiniMax completely disregards U.S. copyright law and treats Plaintiffs’ valuable copyrighted characters like its own,” the lawsuit said. “MiniMax’s copyright infringement is willful and brazen.”

“Given the rapid advancement in technology in the AI video generation field … it is only a matter of time until Hailuo AI can generate unauthorized, infringing videos featuring Plaintiffs’ copyrighted characters that are substantially longer, and even eventually the same duration as a movie or television program,” the lawsuit said.

MiniMax did not immediately return a request for comment.

Hollywood is grappling with significant challenges, including the threat of AI, as companies consolidate and reduce their expenses as production costs rise. Many actors and writers, still recovering from strikes that took place in 2023, are scrambling to find jobs. Some believe the growth of AI has threatened their livelihoods as tech tools can replicate iconic characters with text prompts.

While some studios have sued AI companies, others are looking for ways to partner with them. For example, Lionsgate has partnered with AI startup Runway to help with behind the scenes processes such as storyboarding.

Ahead of a 50th anniversary screening of “Jaws” this month at the AMC Theatres in Century City, even the trailers were nostalgic.

Moviegoers saw previews of Marty McFly taking flight in a DeLorean in 1985’s “Back to the Future,” the Von Trapp family sharing a musical picnic in the Austrian hills in 1965’s “The Sound of Music” and Tom Hanks launching into space in 1995’s “Apollo 13.”

And those are just a few of the movies that are returning to theaters this year to celebrate landmark anniversaries.

The box office shows there’s a demand to be met, as many classic titles outearn various new releases during opening weekends.

Over Labor Day weekend, “Jaws” came in as the second-highest-grossing movie with a domestic opening of $8.2 million, behind Zach Cregger’s horror hit “Weapons.” Steven Spielberg’s breakout blockbuster was shown in 3,200 theaters and made around $15 million worldwide. Earlier this year, the 20th anniversary screening of “Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith” also ranked second with $25 million for its opening weekend, under Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners.” It raked in about $55 million worldwide, bringing the title’s total gross box office to more than $900 million.

It’s almost as if movie studios, filmgoers and theater owners alike are pining for a time when the movie business, now struggling more than five years after the COVID-19 pandemic, was the center of popular culture in the U.S. Before social media and Netflix dominated people’s attention.

David Berger, who owns the Ojai Playhouse, a 111-year-old theater with one screen and 200 seats, finds that when studios come to him with a digitally restored classic, he’ll probably see strong attendance. On Sept. 10, he played a 40th anniversary screening of “The Breakfast Club” and sold 125 tickets.

“It’s about getting away from streaming and taking a break from your phone and the world — really just letting the magic of movies do its thing,” Berger said. “So, we book a lot of nostalgic repertory anniversary films, and they do really well. Sales overall are really up.”

Studio executives and moviegoers offer competing theories about why older titles are getting traction on the big screen. Some see it as an anniversary year coincidence. Others look at it as a way to cushion theaters’ thin movie slates, which have not recovered from the pandemic. Some think it’s a way to keep movie theaters in business, as these screenings tend to happen in the middle of the week and help maintain steady crowds.

By the end of 2025, there will have been roughly 100 anniversary and re-release showings brought to screens around the country, according to Comscore. In 2019, Comscore shows that there were a little over 60 re-release and anniversary screenings.

Before the pandemic, most such screenings were for one or two days and were hosted by specialized distributors, such as Fathom Entertainment. Re-releases and anniversaries weren’t often screened as traditional releases from major studios. That’s been changing ever since.

Paul Dergarabedian, a senior media analyst at Comscore, says audiences should expect an uptick of re-releases whenever a year ends with a 0 or a 5.

Titles with loyal fanbases, like 2005’s “Pride & Prejudice” ($6 million), 1990’s “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” ($4 million) and 1975’s “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” ($1.1 million) have capitalized on this market. These films didn’t have a chance to celebrate in 2020, when theaters were closed because of COVID-19.

The rising interest has boosted the business of Fathom, which for more than 20 years has specialized in bringing oldies back to theaters, as well as various documentaries, performing arts shows and faith-based content. Chief Executive Ray Nutt has also noted an increased interest in the area. Anniversary showings of these “classics” tend to make up between 20% and 40% of Fathom’s annual revenue, equating to $20 million or more.

“I’m proud to say that over the last two years, we’ve increased our revenue by 45% and 48% respectively,” said Nutt. “We’ve had record-breaking years, and classics have been a really important part of that.”

Fathom and Lionsgate are gearing up for the return of the “Twilight” saga to theaters for its 20th anniversary. All five films, along with roundtable footage with author Stephenie Meyer, will be screening around the country from Oct. 29 to Nov. 2. Kevin Grayson, Lionsgate’s head of distribution, said the series is slated to screen in about 1,000 theaters. But with strong presales, he said the footprint will probably expand to 1,500 to 2,000 locations.

“‘Twilight’ has been out for a long time,” Grayson said. “But after seeing the significant ticket sales it has already brought in, you can tell people want that communal experience.”

Executives say these showing are good for business and come with little downside.

Studios can dust off a movie they already own and create hype through marketing. The screenings may appeal to fans who may have never seen the movie on the big screen before. While they’re not as profitable as a massive new blockbuster, the additional revenue makes them worth the effort.

“We make a real business out of [these screenings] every single year,” said Jim Orr, Universal Pictures’ president of domestic theatrical distribution. “Everyone understands that the best way to experience a movie is truly on the big screen.”

Even with re-releases, franchises come out on top.

Disney had a 30th anniversary screening of “Toy Story” over the weekend, ahead of the new “Toy Story 5” hitting theaters next year. The studio is also presenting a re-release of “Avatar: The Way of Water,” a few months before the newest installment, “Avatar: Fire and Ash,” arrives in December.

“It’s expensive to market a movie on a global basis,” said Andrew Cripps, Disney’s theatrical distribution head. “When you’ve got an established franchise and you’re building on something that’s had an audience in the past, it’s a lot easier to build your campaign on top of that, rather than starting from scratch.”

Last year, there were indicators that demonstrated the audience’s growing demand to see older movies on the big screen. “Interstellar” earned $15.2 million for its Imax re-entry, and “Coraline” achieved $34 million to commemorate its 15th anniversary.

Many moviegoers attending an evening screening of “Jaws” said they wanted to see the movie “the way it was intended,” embracing the communal experience of fear and laughter in the theater.

“I haven’t seen ‘Jaws’ in years, and seeing it on the big screen felt ceremonial in a way,” said Culver City-based Ella Paseua, a recent subscriber to AMC’s Stubs A-List subcription program. “I could watch it at home. But these anniversary screenings are meant for the community. People were applauding when the shark was caught. You don’t get that at home.”

The Studio, satirical cringe comedy on Apple TV about floundering film production company Continental Studios, has been praised for its humour, direction and cinematography

Apple TV series The Studio has today broken an Emmy Awards record for wins by a comedy in a season.

The programme picked up 13 awards, including Seth Rogen’s gong for Best Actor in a Comedy Series, at the ceremony at the Peacock Theatre in Los Angeles. The Studio’s success beats last year’s record for The Bear, which won 11 awards at the Emmys for one season.

Speaking after his win for best comedy actor, Seth, 43, said: “I could not wrap my head around this happening. I’ve never won anything in my life.” Seth co-directs and stars in The Studio, which is a satirical cringe comedy about floundering film production company Continental Studios.

Seth shares the directing Emmy with his longtime collaborator and Studio co-creator Evan Goldberg. In a recent review, Seth is praised highly. It reads: “Rogen has made a lot of very funny stuff over the years, but this is by far the best thing he’s ever done. It’s been said that in order to make an effective satire, you first have to love, or at least care about, the thing you’re mocking.”

READ MORE: Emmys 2025: Seth Rogen’s humble joke as he wins his first Emmy AwardREAD MORE: Myleene Klass and Holly Willoughby sip fizz with famous friends after skipping NTAs

It was a successful night for Apple TV as Britt Lower and Tramell Tillman took trophies for Severance. Britt won best actress in a drama for “Severance” and Tramell won best supporting actor in a drama. It was the first career Emmy for each.

“My first acting coach was tough, y’all,” Tramell, wearing an all-white tuxedo, said from the stage. “But all great mothers are.”

He looked out to his mother in the audience and told her, “You were there for me where no one else was, and no one else would show up.” His win had been widely expected but Lower’s was a surprise in a category where Kathy Bates was considered a heavy favorite, for “Matlock.”

READ MORE: Netflix reveals cast for ‘chaotic’ family drama based on hit novel

Jean Smart won best actress in a comedy for “Hacks” for the fourth time, at 73 extending her own record for the oldest woman ever to win the category. Her castmate and constant scene partner Hannah Einbinder, who had also been nominated for all four seasons but unlike Smart had never won, took best supporting actress in a comedy.

She said she had become committed to a bit where “it was cooler to lose.”

“But this is cool too!” she shouted, then ended her speech by cursing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and saying “Free Palestine!”

GMB stars are fuming at being told they can no longer eat buttered toast in the mornings.

They were among ITV staff warned this week that toasters were banned in their new studios because of health and safety fears.

1

In a meeting attended by presenter Susanna Reid — who has previously spoken of her love of peanut butter, apple and toast — staff were also warned they would have no canteen.

A carb-loving insider said: “It is mutiny down at Good Morning Britain HQ.

“Everyone knows breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

“But the new offices’ kitchen is in a basement with no windows or natural light, so smoke from a toaster is a serious health hazard.

“Those on the night shift who prepare the breakfast show are especially cross as they love their morning toast.

“And there is no canteen so everyone will have to start bringing in their Tupperware packed breakfasts.

“And whilst this seems like extreme cost-cutting, everyone was bamboozled to discover a yoga studio was being built on the roof. It’s all very bizarre.”

As part of an ITV cost-cutting overhaul, production on Lorraine, This Morning and Loose Women will move away from BBC Studioworks’ Television Centre from January.

GMB, meanwhile, is being relocated to ITN on Gray’s Inn Road.

Bosses have tried to ban the bread-browning machines before — but backed down after then-host Piers Morgan shamed them on air.

TORONTO — Welcome to a special daily edition of the Envelope at TIFF, a newsletter collecting the latest developments out of Canada’s annual film showcase. Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Our photo gallery’s latest includes Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Richard Linklater and more.

But click through for our video interviews, including Mark Olsen’s sit-down with Sydney Sweeney and the crew of her boxing movie “Christy,” which required a total transformation.

Sydney Sweeney in “Christy,” a portrait of boxing champ Christy Martin, having its world premiere at the 2025 Toronto International Film Festival.

(Allie Fredericks / TIFF)

Here’s a taste of their exchange:

Sydney, people are already really talking about the physical transformation you make in the movie, the training that you did. What was it about the role that made it seem like you wanted to make that kind of commitment?

Sydney Sweeney: I mean, I couldn’t let Christy down, and I also love transforming for characters. That’s the whole reason of being an actor, is to be something different from yourself and to challenge ourselves.

So I had like two months of training. I built gyms in my house and I had a boxing trainer, I had a weight trainer, I had a nutritionist and would work out and train every single day.

And it was amazing. I loved it. Being able to completely lose yourself for somebody else and then have that person there next to your side. It was transformative.

Katy O’Brian, co-star: It was exhausting watching her do it.

Ben Foster, co-star: And in tribute to Syd, we’d shoot a 12-hour day that was dense, we’ll say, that would be a gentle word. She would then go train and choreograph the fights that she would do back-to-back after, one after another.

Sweeney: I’d be put in the middle of a ring and I’d have like nine girls and they would just drill me with all the different fights, one after the other for like two hours after we would wrap.

Because I really wanted the choreography to match the exact fights that she had in real life. So we would watch all the footage from her fights and memorize all the combinations and then implement those into the fight.

So everything you see were her actual fights. And so I’d wrap, I would do that for two hours, and then I would weight train.

David, there is something very unflinching about the movie. Why was it that you wanted to tell Christy’s story in a way that wasn’t afraid to explore these really dark and disturbing moments in her life?

David Michôd, director: In a way, the dark and disturbing was what made me want to make the movie. I had a clear sense that in this really wild and colorful story of a ’90s boxing pioneer was actually, underneath, it was a very important story to tell about how these coercive control relationships function.

And trying to wrap my brain around what keeps them functioning over, in this case, 20 years. And I knew that where Christy’s story went, it was harrowing.

And what the challenge for me then as a filmmaker was just to go, how do I do this being very conscious of not wanting to step into a world of representations of violence against women and all that kind of stuff, but not shying away from the horror that is very much there and is very palpable.

I could see a big sprawling movie that would start almost as a kind of conventional underdog pioneering sports movie and then morph into something that was deeply moving and important.

Sydney, Ben, what was it like for the two of you performing some of those darker scenes in the film and how did you keep some sense of humanity between the two of you?

Sweeney: There were so many conversations around a lot of those moments, and both Ben and I, we don’t like to rehearse and we kind of just want to feel it. And I think we both became very connected to who we were portraying and —

Foster: Listening.

Sweeney: We just listened

Foster: And Dave created a space where we could do that. And we would block it, we did a lot of talk privately, and then we would come in and jam and nudge. But the truth is Dave is quality control and would fine-tune moments.

The day’s buzziest premieres

‘EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert’

Elvis Presley performing live, as seen in Baz Luhrmann’s archival concert movie “EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert.”

(TIFF)

How deep did Baz Lurhmann go researching his 2022 movie “Elvis”? Forty stories. That’s the depth of the Kansas salt mine where Warner Bros. had stored 59 hours of unseen recordings from Elvis Presley’s seven-year stint in Las Vegas.

Lurhmann studied it for his Oscar-nominated biopic, which mourned Presley as an artist in a cage and wondered who the curious, music-loving boy from Tupelo might have become if Col. Parker had let him, say, visit an ashram with the Beatles.

This time, the “Moulin Rouge!” director has said that he wants to use found footage to “let Elvis sing and tell his story” — as in, Lurhmann’s own spectacular sensibilities will cede center stage to Presley himself, who can still wow a crowd even during a late-career moment when his own fans feared he had more jumpsuits than ambition.

I’ll definitely be at the premiere to pay my respects to the King. — Amy Nicholson

‘Hamnet’

Jessie Buckley, center, in director Chloé Zhao’s “Hamnet.”

(Agata Grzybowska / Focus Features)

You’re going to be hearing a lot of Oscar buzz in the coming months about various movies, along with people insisting that — seriously — this is the one you need to see. “Hamnet” is, far and away, that film, for three specific reasons.

First, Paul Mescal has now done three masterful turns, between this, “Aftersun” and “All of Us Strangers” confirming what a truly special talent he is. Mescal and the “Hamnet” crew came through our TIFF studio.

Clockwise from right: Paul Mescal, Noah Jupe, Jacobi Jupe, director Chloé Zhao, Jessie Buckley and Emily Watson, photographed in the Los Angeles Times Studios at RBC House during the Toronto International Film Festival.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Second, I needed director Chloé Zhao to rebound after the mess that was “Eternals” to the confidence she displayed on “Nomadland” — and she’s done exactly that. Read our Telluride interview with her.

Finally, Jessie Buckley has uncorked one of the year’s most impressive turns: a grief-stricken plunge that elevates her to the level of Casey Affleck in “Manchester by the Sea.” Do not be surprised if, like Affleck, she goes all the way. — Joshua Rothkopf

Want to get Generation Alpha into movie theaters? Look to video games.

Kids still like to go to the movies, according to a high-profile new research report. But the franchises they care about are not the traditional Hollywood popcorn fare.

Seven of the top 10 entertainment franchises that the youngest generation of moviegoers cares about are video game properties, according to a recent study by National Research Group (NRG).

The top five titles that Gen Alpha kids, generally considered to be those ages 12 and under, say they talk most about were Roblox, “Minecraft,” “Fortnite,” “Grand Theft Auto” and “Pokémon,” all of which originated from the world of video games. The highest-ranked non-video game property was Marvel and Walt Disney Co.’s “The Avengers,” at No. 6.

Studios have started to catch on. Spring’s “A Minecraft Movie,” based on the popular game where users build and explore different worlds, was such a huge success. The film, adapted by Warner Bros. and Legendary Entertainment for the big screen, grossed $955 million at the global box office, according to Comscore. Young fans packed the theater, cheering during scenes important to gamers.

“Gaming is a deeply important part of Gen Alpha culture because it provides an essential venue for socialization,” said Fergus Navaratnam-Blair, NRG’s vice president of trends and futures. “Social gaming platforms like Roblox and Fortnite give them the opportunity to spend time with their friends, build communities, and develop a sense of their own identity.”

That could present a shift in the way theaters and studios cater to Gen Alpha, a key demographic born 2013 onward, to their future survival. Compared with millennials and Gen X, a higher percentage of Gen Alpha members (38%) said they would see a movie in a theater instead of waiting for it to come to a streaming service if their friends were talking about it, NRG said.

Nearly 60% of Gen Alpha members said they enjoy watching movies in theaters more than at home, according to NRG, which surveyed more than 6,000 U.S. moviegoers in May and June of this year. The majority of kids surveyed ages 6-to-12 said the reason why they go to the theater is to spend time with friends and family and “to make seeing the movie feel like a special event,” according to NRG.

“We are seeing the signs within this demographic that they do really value the experience of watching movies in theaters,” Navaratnam-Blair said. “The fact that they have grown up surrounded by phones, tablets, other sorts of devices, if anything, that seems to have made them more appreciative of the opportunities that they do get to switch up from all of that.”

Stories that resonate with Gen Alpha can come from franchises they are already familiar with, like “Minecraft,” or ones such as “Wicked” that inspire them to create fan fiction or show off their fandom by dressing up like the characters, he said.

Already, studios are marketing their films to reach younger consumers on platforms they frequent including Roblox and TikTok.

Movie theaters can help cater to Gen Alpha by making the viewing an experience, such as selling food that is matched to what characters are eating on screen, Navaratnam-Blair said.

Younger audiences also can still be attracted to seeing a movie in a theater if it’s a special event that happens after the title has started streaming. For example, many people attended sing-along showings of the popular animated film “KPop Demon Hunters” in theaters even after streaming it first on Netflix. The sing-along version of the film was the No. 1 movie domestically during the weekend it was briefly in theaters, with an estimated $18 million in ticket sales.

“This is a generation that does offer hope for the future of theatrical moviegoing,” Navaratnam-Blair said. “We just need to understand what it is they’re looking for, that experience, and play into it in a way that gives them what they’re looking for out of that.”

“Yellowstone” creator Taylor Sheridan and Paramount are going big in Texas, joining forces to open a 450,000-square-foot production campus in Fort Worth, in a boost to the Lone Star State’s growing entertainment economy.

The venture, announced Wednesday, comes on the heels of Skydance’s $8.4-billion takeover of Paramount and just as Texas has taken major initiatives to encourage more film production, having recently passed legislation increasing its film incentives program to $1.5 billion over the next 10 years.

The massive production hub will be situated on the Alliance Texas campus, a 27,000-acre development owned by billionaire Ross Perot Jr.’s Hillwood, a commercial and residential real estate developer and a partner in the project along with Sheridan’s and Paramount Television.

It will be the largest studio facility in the state, according to officials, and marks another step toward Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s goal “to make Texas the Film Capital of the World.”

“We are at a pivotal moment where Texas can become a global force in the film industry, and North Texas offers the location and resources to play a central role in this development,” said Hillwood President Mike Berry in a statement.

The film campus is composed of two buildings with six sound stages that can support four large-scale productions simultaneously. It is expected to be the home base for such Sheridan-produced shows as “Landman” and “Lioness,” which currently film in Texas.

The second season of “Landman” has been filming at the facility since March.

Taylor Sheridan at the premiere of Paramount+’s “1883” at Wynn Las Vegas in 2021.

(Greg Doherty / Getty Images for Wynn Las Vegas)

The move also marks a turning point for Sheridan’s productions.

In recent years, Sheridan, who grew up in Fort Worth, has filmed many of his hit television shows — including “1883” — across the state.

His productions have brought in hundreds of millions of dollars to local businesses and a stream of tourists in what some in the industry began calling “the Sheridan Effect.”

“SGS Studios isn’t just about sound stages or incentives — it’s about reclaiming the independence and grit that built this industry in the first place,” said Taylor Sheridan in statement about the new project.

As a deep-pocketed producer, David Ellison helped breathe new life into Paramount franchises including “Mission: Impossible,” “Star Trek” and “Top Gun.”

But can the high-flying son of a billionaire make a full-fledged media company airworthy again? Can he use Silicon Valley money and movie business know-how to restore the legacy of one of the entertainment industry’s original studios, following a deal clinched through an act of political appeasement?

Those are the questions Hollywood talent, studio rivals and insiders will be asking as Ellison takes the controls of the new Paramount, after regulators finally approved the long-awaited $8-billion merger with his Santa Monica production company Skydance Media. The deal — two years in the making, and approved by the FCC only after a $16-million settlement with Trump and promises to mindwipe any trace of DEI from the company — is expected to close Aug. 7.

After that, Ellison, backed in large part by his father, Oracle Corp. co-founder Larry Ellison, will bring in his own team to face the daunting challenges.

Chris McCarthy, the architect of Paramount’s recent streaming strategy, is out. Paramount Pictures and Nickelodeon head Brian Robbins is also expected to exit while CBS chief George Cheeks is staying. The incoming management team includes former NBCUniversal Chief Executive Jeff Shell, who is currently a heavyweight at Ellison’s bidding partner RedBird Capital.

Skydance Chief Creative Officer Dana Goldberg will run the film studio, and former Netflix executive Cindy Holland will play a major role at the new company. Also joining is Sony Pictures movie executive Josh Greenstein.

This may be a different team from the one that labored under outgoing controlling shareholder Shari Redstone, but it’ll be contending with most of the same problems.

Paramount is dogged by issues buffeting all legacy media companies, including the decline of traditional TV ratings, the post-COVID-19 realignment of the theatrical box office and the escalating costs of sports rights, as my colleague Stephen Battaglio and I reported last week. Those difficulties were exacerbated at Paramount by chronic underinvestment and years of shambolic leadership, as corporate governance experts have long pointed out.

Ellison has direct experience with movies, having produced many of them, including some of Paramount’s biggest hits (as well as some notable flops). He’s less steeped in running TV channels and streaming services, which have urgent needs. The scion is also coming in to make good on a promise to investors: to find $2 billion in cost cutting, which will mean layoffs and disruption.

Paramount+ has been growing, thanks in part to the NFL, CBS shows and a run of original hits including “Landman,” “1923” and “Tulsa King.” But the service has lost money for years, and the app is clunky. (It’s expected to reach full-year U.S. profitability in 2025.) McCarthy spent big bucks on talent, including Taylor Sheridan and the creators of “South Park,” enough to make Matt Stone and Trey Parker billionaires, according to Forbes.

Analysts say the service will need substantial investment in content and technology to make it competitive while also partnering with other companies to increase its reach through discounted bundles and other initiatives.

The new owners will have to decide what to do with the cable channel business, which includes such eroding brands as MTV, BET and Comedy Central.

Many observers tend to assume Ellison will eventually spin those off, following the lead of NBCUniversal and Warner Bros. Discovery. In a sadly comical reminder of what can happen with a merger gone wrong, David Zaslav’s Warner Bros. Discovery on Monday announced that the two companies resulting from its pending breakup will be called — wait for it — Warner Bros. and Discovery Global.

TD Cowen analyst Doug Cruetz, in a recent note to clients, speculated that Ellison didn’t buy the Paramount assets just to “break it up for parts.”

We’ll see.

Another looming and potentially costly issue is the NFL’s relationship with CBS Sports. The change of control will trigger an early renegotiation of Paramount’s contract with the league once the transaction closes. That’s important because the NFL has significant leverage in dealmaking, considering that its games account for the vast majority of most-watched programming on television.

Ellison has promised to bring technological enhancements to Paramount. That would mean a more functional app for Paramount+ and an improved personalized recommendation system. It might mean using tech to make movies cheaper and faster. A year ago, Ellison noted a partnership between Skydance Animation and Oracle to build a so-called studio in the cloud. What technology can’t do is pick the movies people want to see, and that’s where the new leadership group will have to prove themselves.

But the biggest hurdle will be overcoming the stain covering the deal itself after the concessions required to get it over the finish line.

Paramount paid a substantial sum to make peace with President Trump, who had sued the company over CBS News’ “60 Minutes” interview with his 2024 election rival, then-Vice President Kamala Harris. The case was frivolous, 1st Amendment experts said. But the Redstone family and the Ellisons were desperate to get the deal done. As a result, the new company is starting off on a crooked foundation, as one Hollywood insider put it to me.

Stephen Colbert, speaking on “The Late Show,” called Paramount’s settlement a “big fat bribe.” Days later, he learned that his show would be ending in May. Even assuming the company told the truth in saying that the cancellation was a purely financial decision (i.e., the show was too expensive and it was losing money), the optics were bad.

Comedians responded the way comedians do. The “South Park” team, having secured a $1.5 billion deal to bring the long-running animated series to Paramount+, opened their 27th season with, effectively, a pair of middle fingers raised to Trump and their parent company.

The show depicted a flapping-headed cartoon Trump in bed with Satan, similar to its past portrayal of Saddam Hussein, and ended with an AI-generated PSA showing the president wandering the desert and stripping naked, revealing tiny, talking genitalia.

The Trump settlement cast a pall over whatever plans Ellison has. CBS News lost key figures in part due to Paramount’s push to reach a peace accord with the president (Tanya Simon being named to run “60 Minutes” is seen as a relief). But whatever you say about the corporate behind-the-scenes machinations that took place to make the deal happen, you can’t say the artists have lost their spine.

Stuff we wrote

Number of the week

In a return to form for Walt Disney Co.’s Marvel Studios, “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” opened with a robust $118 million in the U.S. and Canada and $218 million globally, according to studio estimates, slightly outperforming prerelease projections.

This comes after middling results and poor reviews for “Captain America: Brave New World” and tepid sales (but better reviews) for “Thunderbolts*.” Last summer’s “Deadpool & Wolverine” was a $1.34-billion hit.

Like Deadpool and Wolverine, the Fantastic Four — known as Marvel’s first family — came to Disney through the company’s acquisition of 21st Century Fox entertainment assets. Fox made three “Fantastic Four” movies, all bad. “First Steps” earned mostly positive reviews from critics and fans (88% on Rotten Tomatoes; “A-” from CinemaScore).

The $218-million global opening weekend was similar to that of James Gunn’s DC reboot “Superman,” released earlier this month. That film just crossed the $500 million box office milestone, with a strong $289 million domestically and a less-impressive $213 million overseas.

Theaters have been on a winning streak this summer. So far this year, ticket sales are up 12% from 2024, according to Comscore. But the rest of the season looks thin. Next weekend features Paramount’s “The Naked Gun,” Universal’s animated “Bad Guys 2” and Neon’s Sundance horror breakout “Together,” starring real-life couple Dave Franco and Alison Brie.

Finally …

One marker of a great artist is the number and diversity of musicians who take inspiration from their work. And Ozzy Osbourne, the Black Sabbath frontman who died last week, had plenty of admirers who covered his songs.

The Times’ Mikael Wood already rounded up the Prince of Darkness’ 10 essential tracks. Here are some of the best covers, with help from Rolling Stone and Loudwire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mann at his office in Santa Monica.

(Brian Feinzimer / For The Times)

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

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

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

But should they?

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

(Al Seib / For The Times)

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

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

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

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

Who’s in control?

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

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

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

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

Justine Bateman, photographed by The Times in 2022.

(Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lights, camera, replication

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

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

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

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

(Sony Pictures Ent.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Kate Dockeray / For The Times)

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

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

Ghosts in the frame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Lucasfilm Ltd.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actors, not avatars

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

(Michael Nagle / For The Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emmy nominations arrive Tuesday, and there will be plenty of time for us to argue about who should win (let’s start with “The Pitt”) and why this could be the year (though probably not) that we’ll have a surprise or two when the trophies are handed out on Sept. 14.

In the meantime, if you love “Severance,” “The White Lotus,” “The Pitt,” “The Studio,” “Hacks” and “Adolescence,” you will find plenty of reasons to smile. These are the shows that are going to steamroll through the nominations. If you belong to the “What We Do in the Shadows” cult and want a tip of the hat for its final season, you’re probably in luck. And if your comic taste embraces the absurd, and you have complicated feelings about air travel, you might be disappointed that Nathan Fielder’s “The Rehearsal” is left out of comedy series, though Fielder could earn a nod for his direction. Attaboy, Captain!

Who else will be flying high when nominations are announced? Let’s take a look.

COMEDY SERIES
“Abbott Elementary”
“The Bear”
“Hacks”
“Nobody Wants This”
“Only Murders in the Building”
“Shrinking”
“The Studio”
“What We Do in the Shadows”

Possible surprise: “The Four Seasons”
Possible “snub”: “What We Do in the Shadows”

“The Bear” won 11 Emmys last year, the most wins ever for a comedy series in a single ceremony. But that record was lost on viewers when “Hacks” won the final Emmy of the evening, besting “The Bear” for comedy series. “The Bear” has been sliding with critics, going from a 92 rating on review aggregator Metacritic for its second season to an 80 for its third and a 73 for its just-released fourth season. Sometimes I wonder if the naysayers are taking the time to consider the whole picture and the patient, deliberate way “The Bear” shows the difficulties in breaking free from addiction and familial dysfunction.

Because the show’s new seasons arrive in June, there’s some overlap between what voters are watching (the latest episodes) and what they’re supposed to be voting for (the episodes that came out a year ago). The new season was exceptional, ending in a showcase for its primary actors and providing well-earned catharsis for their characters. I don’t know if “The Bear” will win any Emmys this year, but the nominations will still be plentiful — and deserved.

COMEDY ACTRESS
Kristen Bell, “Nobody Wants This”
Quinta Brunson, “Abbott Elementary”
Ayo Edebiri, “The Bear”
Natasha Lyonne, “Poker Face”
Jean Smart, “Hacks”

Possible surprise: Selena Gomez, “Only Murders in the Building”
Possible “snub”: Lyonne

As always, it’s an honor to be nominated. And in a category that includes Smart, a nomination will be as far as it goes for the four women joining her. Edebiri and Brunson are sure bets to return. Bell has never been nominated, though she was a delight on “The Good Place.” She should break through for “Nobody Wants This,” the most easily binged contender this Emmy season. But voters could go any number of ways here, opting for past Emmy favorites like Tina Fey (“The Four Seasons”), Kathryn Hahn (“Agatha All Along”) or Uzo Aduba (“The Residence”). Or they could re-up Gomez, who received her first acting nomination last year, or Lyonne, recognized two years ago for the first season of “Poker Face.”

COMEDY ACTOR
Adam Brody, “Nobody Wants This”
Seth Rogen, “The Studio”
Jason Segel, “Shrinking”
Martin Short, “Only Murders in the Building”
Jeremy Allen White, “The Bear”

Possible surprise: Steve Martin, “Only Murders in the Building”
Possible “snub”: Segel

As with comedy actress, this category has one less nominee slot this year, which could be bad news for veterans Martin and Ted Danson (“A Man on the Inside”). If Bell earns a nomination for lead actress, how could you leave out Brody? And if you laud Short, how do you neglect Martin? (That happened two years ago, when the field was five.) But if Emmy voters were paying attention — and that is, admittedly, a big if — they’d remember that it’s Martin who carried the emotional weight of the past season of “Only Murders,” his character grieving the guilt from the loss of his longtime stunt double and friend (played by Jane Lynch).

COMEDY SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Liza Colón-Zayas, “The Bear”
Hannah Einbinder, “Hacks”
Kathryn Hahn, “The Studio”
Janelle James, “Abbott Elementary”
Catherine O’Hara, “The Studio”
Sheryl Lee Ralph, “Abbott Elementary”
Jessica Williams, “Shrinking”

Possible surprise: Megan Stalter, “Hacks”
Possible “snub”: Hahn

There’s more room in the supporting categories, which sport seven spots. That should be good news for Hahn, consistently the most delightful actor working in television today. She could well be a double nominee for her profane, force-of-nature marketing exec on “The Studio” and for her lead turn in the Marvel spinoff “Agatha All Along.” She could also somehow be shut out completely. (Let’s not go there.)

COMEDY SUPPORTING ACTOR
Ike Barinholtz, “The Studio”
Paul Downs, “Hacks”
Harrison Ford, “Shrinking”
Ebon Moss-Bachrach, “The Bear”
Tyler James Williams, “Abbott Elementary”
Michael Urie, “Shrinking”
Bowen Yang, “Saturday Night Live”

Possible surprise: Colman Domingo, “The Four Seasons”
Possible ”snub”: Urie

“The Four Seasons” was a bit of a snooze, but I was nudged awake every time Domingo came onscreen. Will older voters have a soft spot for this featherweight Gen X friends drama, or were they just watching to take notes on places to visit in upstate New York? Netflix campaigners excel at vacuuming up nominations, so it wouldn’t be surprising if “The Four Seasons” outperforms expectations.

DRAMA SERIES
“Andor”
“The Diplomat”
“The Last of Us”
“Paradise”
“The Pitt”
“Severance”
“Slow Horses”
“The White Lotus”

Possible surprise: “Squid Game”
Possible “snub”: “Paradise”

The first season of “Andor” earned 8 nominations and it could well surpass that for its second and final go-round, one that leaned into a pointed critique of authoritarianism, showing how easily a democracy can erode into fascism. The category’s last spot is a toss-up between the disappointing second season of “Squid Game,” which felt bloated even at just seven episodes, and “Paradise,” another dystopian drama, but a lot more fun, even with all the overwrought ’80s covers.

DRAMA ACTRESS
Kathy Bates, “Matlock”
Britt Lower, “Severance”
Elisabeth Moss, “The Handmaid’s Tale”
Bella Ramsey, “The Last of Us”
Keri Russell, “The Diplomat”

No “snubs.” No surprises. These are the nominees. And jumping ahead, to answer your question: Yes, Kathy Bates has won an Emmy — two, in fact. If you saw her on “American Horror Story: Coven” somehow making a serial killer and slave abuser almost sympathetic, you know that particular Emmy was earned. And I’m not sure if she had more than two minutes of running time for the guest turn on “Two and a Half Men,” for which she won her first Emmy, but watching her spot-on imitation of Charlie Sheen as the ghost of Charlie Harper, I can’t argue with the choice.

DRAMA ACTOR
Sterling K. Brown, “Paradise”
Gary Oldman, “Slow Horses”
Pedro Pascal, “The Last of Us”
Adam Scott, “Severance”
Noah Wyle, “The Pitt”

Again, no “snubs.” No surprises. Unless the nerds in the actors branch go all in for Diego Luna in “Andor.”

DRAMA SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Carrie Coon, “The White Lotus”
Taylor Dearden, “The Pitt”
Allison Janney, “The Diplomat”
Katherine LaNasa, “The Pitt”
Parker Posey, “The White Lotus”
Natasha Rothwell, “The White Lotus”
Aimee Lou Wood, “The White Lotus”

Possible surprise: Leslie Bibb, “The White Lotus”
Possible “snub”: Dearden

“The White Lotus” snagged four nominations in this category for its second season, with Jennifer Coolidge winning. I’d expect the widely seen third season to at least equal that and possibly exceed it if voters go with Bibb. Meanwhile, “The Pitt,” featuring an ensemble with more fully realized characters, will have to settle for a one or two nods. (I’ll need Dr. King’s calm, caring support if Dearden isn’t nominated.) What will it take to break through this two-show category blockade? Just an actor owning seven Emmys. Janney doesn’t need a spot on “The Pitt” or “The White Lotus” to make it in, though wouldn’t it be fun if she showed up on the next season of one of these shows?

DRAMA SUPPORTING ACTOR
Walton Goggins, “The White Lotus”
Jason Isaacs, “The White Lotus”
Jack Lowden, “Slow Horses”
Sam Rockwell, “The White Lotus”
Patrick Schwarzenegger, “The White Lotus”
Tramell Tillman, “Severance”
John Turturro, “Severance”

Possible surprise: Patrick Ball, “The Pitt”
Possible “snub”: Schwarzenegger

Do all the “White Lotus” men make the cut too? Possibly. Though, again, it’d be nice to even things out a bit and include Ball, so good as the troubled Dr. Langdon on “The Pitt.” Given the character’s ambiguous fate, this might be the only chance to nominate Ball. Lowden earned his first nomination last year, alongside “Slow Horses” castmate Jonathan Pryce. With the show’s latest season hinging on the emotional relationship between their characters, there’s a chance they both could return.

LIMITED SERIES
“Adolescence”
“Dying for Sex”
“Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”
“The Penguin”
“Say Nothing”

Possible surprise: “Disclaimer”
Possible “snub”: “Say Nothing”

Perhaps I’m underestimating “Disclaimer,” Alfonso Cuarón’s pulpy psychological thriller. Expectations were high; Apple TV+ had the chutzpah to show it at both the Venice and Telluride film festivals last year. But its pleasures and narrative momentum dissipated rather rapidly over the course of its seven episodes. I don’t know anyone who managed to finish it. Yet, in a weak year for limited series, it might make it in on name value alone.

LIMITED SERIES/MOVIE ACTRESS
Cate Blanchett, “Disclaimer”
Kaitlyn Dever, “Apple Cider Vinegar”
Cristin Milioti, “The Penguin”
Michelle Williams, “Dying for Sex”
Renée Zellweger, “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”

Possible surprise: Ellen Pompeo, “Good American Family”
Possible “snub”: Dever

Zellweger won an Oscar for playing the plucky farmer in “Cold Mountain” and a deteriorating Judy Garland in “Judy.” And, given the film academy’s aversion to humor, it might surprise you to learn that she earned a lead actress nomination for the first “Bridget Jones” movie in 2002. Now, more than two decades later, Zellweger has a shot at her first Emmy nomination for the fourth film in the series. It’s her signature role. Give her the nod and the Emmy too.

LIMITED SERIES/MOVIE ACTOR
Colin Farrell, “The Penguin”
Stephen Graham, “Adolescence”
Brian Tyree Henry, “Dope Thief”
Kevin Kline, “Disclaimer”
Cooper Koch, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”

Graham figures to be nominated for “Adolescence” as a producer, actor and writer. (He wrote all four episodes with series co-creator Jack Thorne.) He’s excellent playing Eddie, the shell-shocked dad, particularly in the series’ final episode, which has his character dealing with the aftermath of his son’s arrest, trying to have normal life, a happy birthday, while plagued by doubts that what happened was somehow his fault. Graham deserves the Emmy for the last scene, where Eddie goes into his son’s room, tucks in his teddy bear and whispers, “I’m sorry, son. I should’ve done better.”

LIMITED SERIES/MOVIE SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Erin Doherty, “Adolescence”
Deirdre O’Connell, “The Penguin”
Imogen Faith Reid, “Good American Family”
Chloë Sevigny, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”
Jenny Slate, “Dying for Sex”
Christine Tremarco, “Adolescence”

Possible surprise: Lesley Manville, “Disclaimer”
Possible “snub”: Reid

Doherty will likely win for the series’ third episode, the taut two-hander with Owen Cooper. But, again, the fourth episode is just as good — maybe even better — featuring a heart-rending turn from Tremarco as the mom trying to hold it together.

LIMITED SERIES/MOVIE SUPPORTING ACTOR
Javier Bardem, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”
Owen Cooper, “Adolescence”
Rob Delaney, “Dying for Sex”
Rhenzy Feliz, “The Penguin”
Peter Sarsgaard, “Presumed Innocent”
Ashley Walters, “Adolescence”

Possible surprise: Clancy Brown, “The Penguin”
Possible “snub”: Sarsgaard

Cooper will soon become the fifth teen actor to win a Primetime Emmy. Next up: A juicy role in Emerald Fennell’s adaptation of “Wuthering Heights.”

July signals summer fun, Independence Day and … Emmy nominations.

Nominations for TV’s biggest awards show will be announced Tuesday. This year’s field of small-screen offerings includes returning favorites like HBO’s “The White Lotus” and breakout hits such as Apple TV+’s “The Studio.”

Here is everything you need to know about this year’s Emmy nominations.

When will Emmy nominations be announced?

The 77th Emmy Awards nominations will be revealed Tuesday beginning at 8:30 a.m. PT/11:30 a.m. ET. The nominees will be announced by Television Academy Chair Cris Abrego alongside “What We Do in the Shadows” star Harvey Guillén and “Running Point’s” Brenda Song.

How can I watch?

You can livestream the announcement on the TV Academy’s website or YouTube channel.

Who are the predicted nominees?

“Hacks” and “The Studio” are expected to lead the comedy pack. Other contenders include “The Bear,” “Only Murders in the Building,” “Abbott Elementary,” “Shrinking,” “What We Do in the Shadows” and “Nobody Wants This.”

Drama series nominees could include “Severance,” “The Pitt,” “The White Lotus” and “The Last of Us.” “Slow Horses,” “Andor,” “The Diplomat” and “Squid Game” are also in the running.

The limited series front-runners, meanwhile, include “Adolescence,” “The Penguin,” “Dying for Sex,” “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story” and “Disclaimer.”

After nominations are announced, final-round voting will commence Aug. 18 and conclude Aug. 27.

When are the 2025 Emmy Awards?

The 77th Emmy Awards will take place Sept. 14 at 5 p.m. PT/8 p.m. ET at downtown’s Peacock Theater in L.A. Live. The ceremony, hosted for the first time by Nate Bargatze, will air live on CBS and stream on Paramount+ the next day.

Jesse Collins Entertainment is producing the Emmy Awards for the third consecutive year.

The Creative Arts Emmys will be held Sept. 6 and 7.

The announcement last month that Occidental Studios would be put up for sale marked a historic turning point in a studio once used by Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks to make silent films.

It also underscored how dramatically the market has shifted for the owners of soundstages across Los Angeles that have been buffeted by a confluence of forces — the pandemic, strikes in 2023 and the continued flight of production to other states and countries.

As film activity has fallen to historic levels in the L.A. region — film shoot days dropped 22% in the first quarter of 2025 — the places that host film and TV crews, along with prop houses and other businesses that service the industry, have been especially hard hit.

Between 2016 and 2022, Los Angeles’ soundstages were nearly filled to capacity, boasting average occupancy rates of 90%, according to data from the nonprofit organization FilmLA, which tracks on-location shoot days in the Greater L.A. area.

That rate plummeted to 69% in 2023, as dual writers’ and actors’ strikes brought the industry to a halt.

Once the strikes were over, production never came back to what it was. In fact, last year the average occupancy rate dropped even further to 63%, according to a FilmLA report released in April.

So far this year, there is “no reason to think the occupancy numbers look better,” said Philip Sokoloski, spokesperson for FilmLA.

“It’s a trailing indicator of the loss of production,” he said. “The suddenness of the crash is what caught everybody by surprise.”

Studio owners, who have watched their soundstages go from overbooked to frequently empty, are celebrating the new state tax credits meant to boost their industry and create action on their lots.

The California Legislature’s decision to more than double the amount allocated each year to the state’s film and television tax credit program to $750 million could be a tipping point toward better times, studio owners said, but the climb out of the doldrums is still steep.

“This is definitely a defining moment and to see whether or not L.A. is going to get itself back up to the occupancy levels that it had prior to COVID,” said Shep Wainwright, managing partner of East End Studios. “Everyone’s pretty bullish about it, but it’s obviously been such a slog for the past few years.”

Sean Griffin of Sunset Studios called the tax credit boost signed into law last week “a massive stride in the right direction” while Zach Sokoloff of independent studio operator Hackman Capital Partners called the decision “an enormous win for the state.”

Sokoloff hopes to see its Southern California facilities, which include Radford Studio Center and Culver Studios, perk up the way their New York properties did when the state increased its film and TV subsidy to $800 million in May.

“We had stages that had been sitting empty, and almost 24 hours after the passage of the tax credit bill in New, York, our phones were ringing,” he said. “We had renewed interest in soundstage occupancy there.”

Community member William Meyerchak, left, Los Angeles City Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, center, and Zach Sokoloff, senior vice president of Hackman Capital Partners, right, celebrate after the passing of the $1-billion TVC project, which will expand and redevelop the old CBS Television City site at Beverly Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue, on Jan. 7, 2025.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Los Angeles Center Studios, where such shows as “Mad Men” and “Westworld” filmed, also has felt the effects of the production slump.

The 26-year-old facility in downtown L.A. has six 18,000-foot soundstages and three smaller stages, along with a number of practical locations on the lot for shooting. Before the pandemic, its stages were 100% full for more than 10 years, said Sam Nicassio, president of Los Angeles Center Studios.

He declined to state the studio’s current occupancy rate, though he said it was above the average for about 300 soundstages throughout the area, which his company tracked at 58%.

“It’s been a struggle,” he said. “The slowdown in overall production activity, coupled with coming out of the strikes and all of us expecting to have a jump-start again and we didn’t, was very difficult. There’s a lot of soundstages for not a lot of users right now.”

Not long ago, private equity firms saw L.A. studio stages as good business opportunities.

A billboard for a Netflix streaming show “The Diplomat,” on a building across the street from where WGA members walk a picket line around Bronson Sunset Studios, in May 2023.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

WGA members walk a picket line around Bronson Sunset Studios lot, where Netflix leases space for production and offices, in May 2023.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

A number of firms participated heavily in the construction of new facilities, which seemed like smart bets due to advancements in production technology, the desire of studios and streamers to cut down on unpredictable risk from on-location shoots and — especially after the pandemic — health and safety systems like air filtration and more space to prevent workers from getting sick.

“Stages are critical to being able to do, especially TV, on time and on budget,” said George Huang, a professor of screenwriting at the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television. “They are the backbone of making movies in Hollywood.”

But after the pandemic, strikes and a cutback in spending at the studios, production slowed. Then in January, the Southern California wildfires hit, further affecting production and causing many in the industry to lose their homes — and reconsider whether they wanted to stay in the Golden State.

Working with influencers

As Hollywood production slowed, soundstage operators looked for new ways to make up revenue, including shoots for the fashion industry, music videos, DJ rehearsals, video game production and even private events like birthdays or weddings.

Hackman Capital Partners, which owns and operates Television City in Los Angeles, recently announced a partnership with Interwoven Studios to open a boutique production facility catering to social media influencers, online media brands and other creators who work in nontraditional formats such as YouTube.

Among the well-known creators who have worked lately at Television City — home to such classic shows as “All in the Family” and most recently “American Idol” — are Logan Paul and Jake Shane, actress-singer Keke Palmer, livestreamers FaZe Clan and hip-hop artist Big Sean.

“As the segment of the content-creation universe grows on the smaller end of production, we’re going to be a partner to them,” Sokoloff said. “Necessity is the mother of invention.”

Sunset Studios, which operates 59 stages in the Los Angeles area, has long made a point of working with short-form creators through its smaller Quixote division, said Griffin, who is head of studio sales. “We’ve always been involved with influencers, music videos and commercials.”

Such tenants working on smaller stages sometimes move up to TV and movie-sized stages when they land a big television commercial or music video, such as Selena Gomez’s “Younger and Hotter Than Me” music video recently shot at Sunset Las Palmas Studios.

Paul McCartney leased a studio at Sunset Glenoaks Studios to rehearse for his 2024 tour and and made a music video there.

In general, though, stages are still underused, he said.

“Once the strikes ended, we got a about a good healthy quarter” of production, he said. Then business “really quieted down, and we haven’t seen the show counts rebound very much.”

The vacancies have created a tenant-friendly market as studio owners compete for their business on rental prices, Griffin said.

“This is a very tough market,” he said. “Everyone is competing very, very hard.”

One reason for optimism about the new tax credits is that they apply to 30-minute shows for the first time, he said.

“L.A. is a television town,” Griffin added. “Opening up the tax credit to 30-minute comedies is going to be really helpful.”

And there are signs of life for longer scripted shows that take multiple stages and shoot for longer than other productions, Griffin said.

Developer David Simon is betting heavily on a turnaround. He is building a new movie studio from the ground up in Hollywood. His $450-million Echelon Studios complex is set to open late next year on Santa Monica Boulevard.

“We think content creation is here to stay in various forms,” he said, and that big soundstages will continue to be used even as the technology to make content changes.

Simon said he is close to signing leases with fashion brands that are creating content with celebrities and collaborating with influencers.

“We’re not nearly where we were prepandemic,” he acknowledged, but “California is the entertainment capital of the world, and the producers and directors and actors that want to stay in state will help bring back and retain our fair share of production.”

For now , at least, soundstage operators are still “treading water,” said Peter Marshall, managing principal at Epic Insurance Brokers & Consultants, who works in media insurance and counts some L.A.-based soundstages as clients.

“Most operators are pretty concerned,” he said.

Yet, the fact that there are still new soundstages opening and others are in development suggests a “high level of confidence” that production will eventually return to L.A., Sokoloski of FilmLA said.

“I am optimistic that we will keep more production here than we have in the last few years,” Nicassio said. The new tax credit program “puts us on a competitive level now with other states and countries.”

Others in the industry say that more is needed and have advocated for a federal tax credit that would help make California a morecompetitive location. Gov. Gavin Newsom has pushed for the idea, urging President Trump to work with him on the issue.

“When you have a governor and big private equity firms both focusing on promoting one thing, that might, who knows, get the federal government involved,” Marshall said. “That would be the game changer.”

He can outrun a train, hold up a collapsing tower on a fiery oil rig and fly around the world to turn back time. But Superman’s greatest challenge might just be saving the DC film franchise.

The Warner Bros.-owned superhero brand — one of Hollywood’s most important — has hit a rough patch in recent years.

Films such as 2023’s “Shazam! Fury of the Gods,” “The Flash” and last year’s “Joker: Folie à Deux” struggled at the box office. Despite owning a lucrative stable of well-known superheroes like Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman, the studio has failed to become a consistent competitor to Walt Disney Co.‘s Marvel Studios.

Now under the new leadership of filmmaker-producer pair James Gunn and Peter Safran, DC Studios is counting on its new “Superman” film, hitting theaters Thursday, to revive not only the Man of Steel series but the entire DC universe.

Choosing the flying Kryptonian refugee to kick-start DC’s new era was a risky bet for Gunn, who wrote and directed the new film.

Although Superman is recognizable all over the world, his aw-shucks demeanor and nearly limitless superpowers have made him a tough character to make relevant to today’s audiences. His global reputation, as an overgrown godlike Boy Scout spouting American ideals, for years made him less hip for modern viewers than his brooding billionaire vigilante counterpoint, Batman.

“DC has been playing catch-up with Marvel,” said Arlen Schumer, a comic book and pop culture historian. “They’ve given James Gunn the keys to the DC kingdom and said, ‘You’ve got to restore Superman. He’s our greatest icon, but nobody knows what to do with him. We think you know what to do with him.’”

“Superman” is expected to gross $130 million to $140 million in the U.S. and Canada in its opening weekend on a reported budget of about $225 million, according to analyst estimates. The movie received an 85% approval rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. (Times critic Amy Nicholson said it wasn’t “quite the heart-soaring ‘Superman’ I wanted,” but enough to be “curious to explore where the saga takes him next.”)

Gunn’s efforts on “Superman” faced intense scrutiny online almost from the moment he started working on it. Fans and critics have picked apart the trailers, grousing about the heavy screen time for Krypto the Superdog (inspired by Gunn’s own dog, who is also a foot biter), or how actor David Corenswet, who plays the iconic superhero, is a relative unknown.

Warner Bros. itself is counting on “Superman” to continue a box office rebound stemming from a string of hits including “A Minecraft Movie,” “Sinners,” “Final Destination Bloodlines” and “F1.”

Shortly before its release, “Superman” came under fire from right-wing commentators, who criticized comments Gunn made to the Times of London about how Superman (created by a Jewish writer-artist team in the late 1930s) is an immigrant and that he is “the story of America.” He’s an alien from the planet Krypton, after all.

“I think this is a movie about kindness,” Gunn told Variety on Monday at the film’s Hollywood premiere in response to the backlash. “And I think that’s something everyone can relate to.”

That appeal is what Warner Bros. and DC Studios are counting on.

“You need a track record of success to build a brand,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore. “This is a monumental moment for DC with one of their biggest characters of all time and that’s very important to the box office, to the future of DC and to the perception of DC as a brand.”

DC Studios did not respond to requests for comment.

Superman returns

This summer’s Gunn-directed “Superman” is the first stand-alone film about the famous hero in more than a decade, following a history of dramatic ups and downs.

The 2013 blockbuster “Man of Steel,” directed by Zack Snyder and starring Henry Cavill, introduced a grittier, darker tone to the superhero’s story, including Superman’s controversial neck-snapping kill of a villain. “Man of Steel” received mixed reviews from critics, though it hauled in about $670 million in global box office revenue.

That was followed by 2016’s “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” with Cavill returning and Ben Affleck as Batman, which was panned by critics but made more than $874 million worldwide. Then came the even more reviled “Justice League” the following year, both a critical and commercial disaster for the studio. Ironically, Cavill’s portrayal of Superman was reclaimed by an unruly online fan base demanding that Warner Bros. #ReleaseTheSnyderCut, which it eventually did.

For many, the gold standard of Superman films was 1978’s “Superman,” starring Christopher Reeve and directed by Richard Donner.

Schumer remembers watching the sweeping wheatfield scene when Clark Kent says goodbye to his adoptive mother after his father’s death and embarks on his journey to learn who he truly is. Schumer marveled at the camera sweeping from the golden fields to the blue sky, symbolizing the fledgling Superman’s look toward the future. He ended up seeing the movie 10 times in theaters.

While 1980’s “Superman II” was still well-received, the third and fourth installments of the franchise “went off the rails” and became “campy,” Schumer said.

Unlike Marvel, which centralized control under president Kevin Feige, DC and Warner Bros. for years allowed Snyder’s vision to determine the direction of the film universe. Batman, on the other hand, has been successfully molded by multiple filmmakers (e.g. Christopher Nolan, Snyder and Matt Reeves), allowing new aspects of the character to shine through, Schumer said.

“DC Comics, [Superman] is your flagship property, but they’ve often never really treated it like their flagship property,” he said. “This affected the way DC made movies, versus Marvel.”

The studio has also been criticized for its lack of a cohesive vision and framework for its superhero universe, analysts said. The studio allowed its intellectual property to be splintered into parallel storylines, which became chaotic.

It’s why Gunn and Safran were installed as co-chairmen and co-chief executives of DC Studios in 2022.

Gunn seemed a surprising choice to co-run DC Studios. He started as a screenwriter at indie production house Troma Entertainment — known for B horror pictures — and eventually achieved global success in the superhero genre by directing Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy,” beloved for its irreverent humor. He also had experience with DC, directing 2021’s “The Suicide Squad.”

With the pair at the helm, the goal was to standardize the superhero universe and kick-start a new epoch for the studio. “Superman” is intended to lead off for several upcoming DC movies, including “Supergirl,” starring Milly Alcock, “Clayface,” and “Dynamic Duo” about the Robins — Batman sidekicks Dick Grayson and Jason Todd.

“It’s a table setter,” said Shawn Robbins, director of movie analytics at Fandango and founder of site Box Office Theory. “It’s really intended to be the launching of an entirely new era for DC movies and where that might lead.”

Selling an American hero

But while Superman has generated toy sales, animated series and multiple movies, the character is hard to get right.

Schumer remembers how audiences laughed when Reeve’s Superman tells a scoffing Lois Lane that he was fighting for truth, justice and the American way in the 1978 film, at a time when America was reeling from the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War.

“This idea of truth, justice and the American way was deemed, even back then, hokey,” Schumer said. “And in a sense, it kind of still is.”

From the beginning, Superman has been a quintessential American immigrant story.

Two sons of Jewish immigrants, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, introduced the superhero in 1938 in “Action Comics #1,” which told the tale of the alien, eventually known as Kal-El, who was sent to Earth to escape his dying planet. The comic was “an overnight smash success” that helped launch the comic book medium and the idea of the superhero, Schumer said.

In later stories, Superman’s Midwestern upbringing in Smallville, Kansas and his eventual move to the big city of Metropolis also mirrored the journeys many Americans were making during that time.

But today, there’s questions about whether Superman’s strong American symbolism will be a turnoff for global audiences, who have recently bristled at tariffs and trade policies enacted by President Trump.

“That assumption of Superman being a challenging character in some territories is a legitimate factor,” Robbins said. “What it’s going to come down to is the movie itself and how well it connects with international audiences.”

One advantage: The film snagged a coveted Imax slot — which can boost box office revenue and make a film more of an “event.”

The movie also comes as the once white-hot market for superhero films has cooled, both domestically and abroad. Even Marvel has recently seen lower box office results for its films — despite critical praise, “Thunderbolts*” grossed about $382 million worldwide on a budget of $180 million, paling in comparison to past films.

The potential for “Superman” overseas earnings could be big. Forecasts from entertainment industry analytics firm Cinelytic based on publicly available data found that “Superman” could make about $531 million in global box office revenue, with the top four most likely international markets in Britain, Germany, France and Australia.

Gunn brushed off questions about Superman’s archetypal American symbolism, telling the Times of London in an interview that his own market research found that international audiences viewed the Man of Steel as a global figure.

“He is a hero for the world,” he said in the interview.

But Superman has long-suffered from his lack of flaws and inability to really examine the American ideals he represents, said Annika Hagley, associate dean of the school of social and natural sciences at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, who teaches a course on superheroes and politics.

Over time, Superman’s advocacy of America has remained constant, despite the evolving perception of the U.S. both at home and abroad, she said. That’s in contrast to his Marvel counterpart, the seemingly U.S.-centric Captain America, who evolved from fighting Nazis during World War II to questioning the morality of government surveillance, Hagley said.

While Superman’s immigrant backstory could lend itself to complex narratives about the treatment of newcomers in the U.S., DC has so far failed to evolve his story to address those questions, she said. He did, however, change his motto to the more borderless “truth, justice and a better tomorrow” in recent years.

As an immigrant in a post-9/11 era, “Superman is a security threat, but he’s also boring,” she said. “They’ve tried to make him less American, they tried to make him more alienated and it just hasn’t hit home for an audience in the way that the Marvel characters have.”

Gunn’s “Superman” does touch on America’s role in geopolitics. In a recent trailer for the film, Rachel Brosnahan’s Lois Lane interviews Corenswet’s Superman, questioning whether his involvement in a foreign country’s conflict and “seemingly acting as a representative of the United States will cause more problems around the world.”

“I wasn’t representing anybody except for me,” he interjects. “And doing good.”

This week’s edition of Saturday Kitchen descended into chaos when a huge name from the culinary world called in

Saturday Kitchen halted its usual proceedings today (Saturday, 5th July) when a major celebrity chef called into the show.

Following a segment with Rick Stein in Lancashire, the show returned to presenter Matt Tebbutt in the studio after rustling up a carbonara with Gennaro Contaldo.

However, before moving onto Matt’s interview with Fleur East, the current star of Tina – The Tina Turner Musical, Gennaro interrupted the show to take a phone call.

He revealed none other than Jamie Oliver was on the phone, causing an eruption of laughter from the rest of the guests.

Jamie, the beloved chef, TV presenter and restaurant owner, exclaimed “Hello everyone!” down the line as the Saturday Kitchen stars all applauded.

The phone call continued with Jamie revealing his Saturday morning plans and promising to tune into the show soon.

“Just come back from the market,” he shared. “I’m going to be home in two minutes and I’m going to turn the TV on.”

Matt’s guests this week, which also included Clare Smyth, wine expert Helen McGinn and chocolatier Paul A. Young, all let out an “Aww”.

BBC presenter Matt then quipped: “Jamie’s just been down the market, he actually lives that life.

“He goes down the market, buys his stuff, then goes home on his little scooter.”

As Gennaro told Jamie, “I love you and miss you!”, Matt swiftly moved on to the next segment to prevent any more disruption.

Italian chef Gennaro is a firm fan-favourite of the show and many viewers took to X (formerly Twitter) to praise him for another classic Saturday Kitchen appearance.

“Gennaro is the GREATEST!!” one user exclaimed. “I had the honour and privilege to get to know him years ago during the opens of all the Jamie’s Italians.

“His passion and love is second to one. Plus his food is always perfection.”

And another fan declared: “27 minutes in and this is already a vintage #SaturdayKitchen. Gennaro putting in an all-timer performance – but you come to expect the best from Matt and co.”

Saturday Kitchen airs Saturdays from 10am on BBC One and BBC iPlayer.