A Labor of Love: Birth is for P*ssies Portrays ‘Guttural’ Human Experience With A Punk Soundtrack
At the first birth doula training Hannah Shealy ever attended, she was handed a tote bag with the words “birth is for p*ssies” on it. As she went to more classes and began working as a birth doula, she kept thinking, “This is not like the movies at all.”
“A lot of the movies present birth in this aggressive and violent way,” Shealy says. “But I think all the stories leading up to the moment of a baby coming out of a body are the more interesting ones.”
As she continued working with expecting mothers, the idea of writing a show about labor, pregnancy, and motherhood flooded her mind. She realized that the portrayal of birth in the media often “terrifies” people who have never given birth before. More than creating realistic depictions of the psychological processes of birth, Shealy wanted to write something empowering.
Seeking an “indie warrior” to produce Birth is For P*ssies, Shealy found the perfect match in Celine Sutter. After reading the script, Sutter felt inspired to step out of her comfort zone and take on the role of producer.
In the first episode that premiered at SXSW as a part of the Independent TV Pilot Program, audiences saw stories of birth from two very different worlds. Shealy’s character, Maya, meets an affluent couple from Tribeca before getting thrown into her first real birth experience as a doula, working with a single mother from the Bronx with limited resources.
Shealy describes birth as slightly “punk rock,” so she wanted a soundtrack to create a similar effect, leading her to singer-songwriter and alternative pop star Mikaela Mullaney Straus, better known as King Princess.
The musician had a busy year, with the release of their most recent studio album, Girl Violence, hitting record store shelves in September of 2025. In hindsight, the title of this most recent record may have been an apt premonition of King Princess’ work on the soundtrack of for Birth is for P*ssies.
“I remember … reading the script and hearing Hannah’s story of being a doula, and really knowing nothing about birth myself at all, and I was like, ‘God, birth is really punk rock,’” King Princess says.
Shealy and the rest of the production team were open to their ideas for the soundtrack, which were inspired by listening to IDLES and deciding on a punk sound with “shrieky and feminine” elements, the artist says.
“I was like, ‘Well, maybe it should be kind of punk,’ because it’s to juxtapose this thing that we all think is … so beautiful,” King Princess says. “No, it’s guttural, so maybe we should do something that sounds kind of punk and crazy.”
The marriage of the show’s themes and its soundtrack is a reflection of how the musician views the union between the film and music industries, something they are excited to explore after this first experience soundtracking a piece of television.
“I just don’t think you have film without music or music without film, I think that they’re always dapping up,” King Princess says. “For me, it has always been synonymous with part of the experience of enjoying a medium, that there are multiple mediums built into one.”
Sutter knows presenting the medium of television at festivals is a “toss up,” but she was particularly excited about SXSW because of the state where the pilot would premiere at.
“It’s not spoken about, and reproductive rights are under attack in this country, especially in Texas,” Sutter says.
Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen Stars on Where the Story Goes From Here
This article contains Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen spoilers
Nicky Cunningham is not in a good place at the end of Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen. Having jilted his bride, Rachel, at the altar, he has tried and failed to save his family from experiencing horrifying deaths by finishing the ceremony. As a result, he believes he has also sacrificed Rachel, but is left speechless when she survives and leaves him to deal with the aftermath of his decisions.
Previously, he’d been informed that Rachel’s bloodline was afflicted by a terrible curse: marry your soulmate or die. There were ways to avoid the consequences—like not getting engaged in the first place—but once the engagement was on, there was no escape. Nicky’s skepticism about the curse and his decision to back out of the marriage meant that it spread to his own bloodline, including those family members who had already tied the knot.
Adam DiMarco, who plays Nicky on the new Netflix series, isn’t sure if this is the last Nicky will see of Rachel, despite the catastrophic fallout. “I think once he wakes up from his living nightmare, he might try to track her down and hash things out,” he tells Den of Geek. “I mean, he didn’t die. He’s still alive. He believes that she’s his soulmate, but hopefully, he can also learn to respect her space and boundaries and just let her get on with her life.”
Though Rachel seems to have put their marriage behind her when the credits roll on the final episode of the show, the couple might not be done with each other just yet. DiMarco says he’s always focused on the light and darkness of Nicky and Rachel’s relationship, the yin and yang. Where Rachel once felt rather stranded in the darkness, idealizing her lover and unaware of his issues, she now feels unburdened.
“I keep thinking about these tattoos that our characters have, where it’s like a black rabbit and a white rabbit chasing each other in a circle,” he muses. “Sometimes you feel like you could be one or the other. I think when the series starts, Nicky’s definitely more like the white rabbit, and by the end, maybe he becomes the black rabbit.”
Before Nicky pursues Rachel, he’ll probably need to recover from the carnage of his fateful wedding day. Thanks to the cold feet he experienced just before he was supposed to say “I do,” he could only watch in horror as his mother, sister, and various other members of his family bled out profusely through their faces.
Camila Morrone, who portrays Rachel in the series, says that the messy finale was achieved by blending practical effects with CGI. “A rig went under the eyes, in the nose, and then behind the ears,” she explains. “There was a lot of blood coming out of the rig in real time, through a blood bag pump. We’d also do a big shot of really sticky, thick blood. That would be our gargling blood.”
Morrone admits the blood rigs weren’t her favorite part of the process, but says actors with much smaller roles also had a rough time filming the last episode of the show. “Shout out to the wedding guests for sticking with us in that finale. That was tough for those poor people. They were like, ‘This must be a fun show to come on.’ We were like, ‘Welcome to hell!'”
Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen Almost Had a Totally Different Bride
This article contains spoilers for Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen
In the finale of Netflix’s Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen, there’s a beautiful, terrifying shot of bride-to-be Rachel (Camila Morrone) finally walking down the aisle to marry Nicky, the love of her life. Dressed in white and perfectly made up, Rachel believes she is either heading to “happily ever after” or her doom.
Though the show tells the story of Rachel trying to navigate her cursed bloodline, where tying the knot with the wrong person could kill her, it uses this wild concept to explore the lead-up to the wedding and Rachel’s struggle with whether she and Nicky should be getting hitched in the first place.
“The idea originated from my own fear of commitment and thinking about what it means to marry the right person,” creator Haley Z. Boston tells Den of Geek. “Do soulmates exist? A lot of questions I was grappling with.”
Boston describes herself as an anxious person who “sees the bad in everything” but cites the horror genre as a way to take these internal fears and externalize them. Thanks to the genre’s freedom, Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen isn’t afraid to ask difficult and dark questions about love and commitment in modern times, and Boston says she’s already received some surprising feedback from viewers. “I’ve been told that people have related to this show more than they expected,” she says, adding, “That’s an incredible thing to hear.”
Rachel eventually throws caution to the wind and tries to marry Nicky in earnest, but with so much of the series devoted to whether the couple will actually make it down the aisle, it may surprise you to learn that when Boston first wrote the story, it focused on an entirely different wedding.
“In the original version of the show, Rachel was going to Portia’s wedding, Nikki’s sister, and Rachel ended up having to get married by the end of the season,” Boston explains. “Then we decided to streamline it more and make it Rachel’s wedding. I didn’t initially choose that because I didn’t think Rachel was the kind of character who would have a wedding. That is part of her character, but then she succumbs to the pressure of being with someone who really values marriage. Right from the beginning, it’s already a compromise for her. It was just exciting to figure out her story as someone who’s kind of forced down the aisle.”
After Nicky backs out of the wedding, the self-centered Portia becomes one of the many victims of the curse instead, meeting her fate in the twisted, bloody finale, which ends with Rachel ditching Nicky as ‘We Will Not Be Lovers’ by The Waterboys plays. Boston says she heard the song about a doomed relationship right before she penned the final episode, and from that moment on, she knew it had to be the last needle drop.
“I wanted the show to end with Rachel driving away, mirroring the pilot,” she says. “It was important to me that she’s driving away alone. Not only do the lyrics really match what the show is doing, but they also have such an interesting tone. I wanted it to just really feel triumphant.”
25 Films That Had More Drama Behind the Scenes Than in Them
Hollywood productions often look glamorous on the surface, but many films come with stories far more chaotic than anything that ends up on screen. Clashes between actors, overblown budgets, and endless rewrites can turn a ‘simple movie’ into a full-blown disaster. Those behind-the-scenes battles can become more memorable than the finished product itself.
Plenty of productions have been defined by on-set arguments, creative disputes, and production disasters that fascinated fans long after release, but these 25 movies prove that the real drama in Hollywood doesn’t always happen in front of the camera; it can happen during the long road to getting a film made.
Apocalypse Now (1979)
While a memorable film, Apocalypse Now is also remembered for Marlon Brando’s drunkenness, Martin Sheen’s heart attack, and set-destroying typhoons that blew the budget beyond proportion.
Cleopatra (1963)
Illness and budget issues plagued Cleopatra, but the main drama was the affair between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton that dominated headlines.
Heaven’s Gate (1980)
Director Michael Cimino repeatedly rebuilt massive sets and blew well past the budget, essentially collapsing the United Artists company.
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)
The original director was fired early, and on-set tensions involving Val Kilmer and Marlon Brando turned the shoot into chaos.
Jaws (1975)
It may have become an instant classic, but with its mechanical malfunctions while filming in the ocean causing constant delays, the initial simple budget doubled.
Fitzcarraldo (1982)
Director Werner Herzog insisted on dragging a real steamship over a mountain in the Amazon, creating one of the most grueling shoots in film history.
Alien 3 (1992)
Multiple scripts, directors, and studio interference plagued production, leaving director David Fincher disowning the film.
Waterworld (1995)
Storms destroyed floating sets and the production became the most expensive movie ever made at the time, all for a box-office flop.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
The film spent roughly 15 years stuck in development before filming even began.
The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018)
This passion project by Terry Gilliam collapsed multiple times due to illness, flooding, funding issues, and legal disputes.
The Exorcist (1973)
The shoot ran far longer than planned and included injuries, accidents, and rumors of a “curse.” Today, said rumors add to the film’s state as a cult classic.
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
The production burned through multiple directors and reportedly subjected actors to harsh working conditions, including but not limited to third-degree burns.
The Abyss (1989)
Underwater filming conditions caused exhaustion, injuries, and major tensions between cast and crew.
Blade Runner (1982)
Studio interference, budget issues, and conflicts between director Ridley Scott and the cast made filming notoriously difficult.
Gangs of New York (2002)
Director Martin Scorsese spent decades trying to bring the project to the screen, with Daniel Day-Lewis’s method acting getting on the nerves of his fellow cast members.
The Irishman (2019)
Funding problems and technical challenges delayed production for over a decade.
Alita: Battle Angel (2019)
Originally planned by James Cameron in the early 2000s, the film languished for years before finally being made by Robert Rodriguez.
Justice League (2017)
The film changed directors mid-production and underwent massive reshoots, ending with a tone-deaf final product.
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were fired late in filming and replaced by Ron Howard.
World War Z (2013)
Major rewrites and reshoots forced the third act to be completely reworked.
Cutthroat Island (1995)
The film’s huge budget and troubled production helped bankrupt its studio.
The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)
Originally planned as a serious musical epic called Kingdom of the Sun before being radically reworked mid-production.
The Thief and the Cobbler (1993)
Spent nearly 30 years in production before finally being completed in altered form.
Supernova (2000)
Creative disputes led to multiple rewrites and the director leaving shortly before filming.
Sonic the Hedgehog (2020)
The film was delayed and redesigned after backlash to the original character design in its first trailer. Ugly Sonic will forever be remembered.
16 Movies That Have Aged Worse Than Warm Milk
Time hasn’t been kind to every movie. While some films grow into classics, others feel increasingly out of place as cultural norms, technology, and audience expectations evolve. Movies like American Pie and Crash were once widely accepted or even celebrated, but now spark debates across social media and forums about whether they still hold up.
In some cases, it’s outdated humor or problematic themes. In others, behind-the-scenes controversies or aging visual effects have reshaped how audiences engage with them. This list looks at films that haven’t just aged, but gotten stale and hard to look at, becoming far more difficult to revisit with the same perspective today.
American Pie
Once a defining teen comedy, the film normalized invasive behavior, especially the hidden webcam scene, which has been widely interpreted as a serious violation of consent.
Crash
Initially praised and even awarded Best Picture, the film has an overly simplistic way of portraying racism, with it reducing complex issues into contrived coincidences.
Revenge of the Nerds
The most common example of aging poorly, the film includes scenes that are now clearly recognized as depicting sexual assault played for comedy, which fundamentally changes how we can perceive it now.
The Matrix Reloaded
While ambitious at release, viewers today often criticize its heavy reliance on early-2000s CGI and dense exposition, which feel less impactful compared to the original film’s tighter storytelling and groundbreaking visuals.
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
The film’s ending twist is now broadly criticized for transphobic humor, with something that was once played for laughs now feeling uncomfortable and out of step.
American Beauty
Although once critically acclaimed, its central storyline involving a middle-aged man’s obsession with a teenage girl, combined with Kevin Spacey’s real-life controversies, has significantly altered audience perception.
Hackers
Celebrated as a cult classic, it is now often mocked online for its wildly unrealistic portrayal of hacking, featuring flashy visuals and jargon that bear little resemblance to actual computer systems.
Love Actually
Still popular during holidays, the film is increasingly scrutinized for certain storylines, particularly those involving workplace relationships and romantic persistence that can easily come across as uncomfortable or inappropriate.
Soul Man
Few movies have aged as badly as Soul Man. The film’s use of blackface as a central plot device, something deeply offensive and rightfully condemned.
You’ve Got Mail
Its premise, centered around anonymous online relationships, reflects an early internet culture that feels quaint today, particularly due to how drastically communication norms have evolved since its release.
Mrs. Doubtfire
While still beloved, the central premise of deception and manipulation within a family dynamic has drawn more critical scrutiny, with some audiences finding the protagonist’s actions troubling in hindsight.
What Women Want
The film’s humor and gender dynamics are now often viewed as outdated, with the protagonist’s behavior raising concerns that were, sadly, not as widely discussed at the time of release.
Rain Man
Although acclaimed, it cemented a narrow and stereotypical portrayal of autism, which does not reflect the broader understanding of the spectrum today.
Sex and the City 2
Widely criticized for its portrayal of Middle Eastern culture, with many viewers noting that its stereotypes and tone feel especially out of place by contemporary standards.
Lethal Weapon
While still influential, some viewers note that its tone and certain character elements, particularly Riggs’ mental instability, feel different in hindsight. This is made twice so considering later controversies involving Mel Gibson.
Shallow Hal
The film’s central concept, built around physical appearance and transformation, is now frequently criticized for reinforcing harmful stereotypes about body image despite its intended message.
The 15 Oldest Movie Stars Who Are Still Working Regularly
Hollywood has always celebrated youth, but some of its most enduring icons are proving longevity is just as compelling. From Clint Eastwood still directing in his 90s to Sylvester Stallone leading modern streaming hits, veteran stars continue to shape the industry well past traditional retirement age.
While some do simple cameos or nostalgia appearances, most are still headlining projects, winning awards, and adapting to new platforms like streaming television. This list highlights a generation of performers who built Hollywood’s legacy and are still actively contributing to it today, several decades into their careers.
Tommy Lee Jones
Born: 1946
Age: 79
Continues selecting occasional roles, remaining active, with recent appearances and industry attention albeit slowing output and focusing on selective projects.
Sylvester Stallone
Born: 1946
Age: 79
Recently starred in streaming series Tulsa King and continues producing and acting in action-driven projects across film and television, as well as having a reality TV series about himself.
Susan Sarandon
Born: 1946
Age: 79
Maintains steady work in independent films and television, frequently appearing in dramas and prestige streaming productions in recent years.
Helen Mirren
Born: 1945
Age: 80
Continues appearing in major films and franchises, including recent action and drama roles, while maintaining a steady presence across both cinema and television projects.
Danny DeVito
Born: 1944
Age: 81
Remains active through voice acting, television, and film roles, with ongoing involvement in comedy and animated productions. Currently filming a Jumanji sequel.
Robert De Niro
Born: 1943
Age: 82
Recently starred in The Alto Knights and continues leading major films and high-profile streaming series projects.
Harrison Ford
Born: 1942
Age: 83
Transitioned into television with major roles while still appearing in blockbuster films, maintaining a strong presence in franchise and streaming content.
Al Pacino
Born: 1940
Age: 85
Continues acting in films and streaming projects, often taking supporting roles in biographical and crime-oriented productions.
Patrick Stewart
Born: 1940
Age: 85
Recently reprised iconic roles in television while maintaining steady work in voice acting and film appearances. Will return in Avengers: Doomsday.
Ian McKellen
Born: 1939
Age: 86
Continues acting across film and stage, with recent projects spanning independent cinema and theater productions.
Morgan Freeman
Born: 1937
Age: 88
Frequently appears in thrillers and dramas, alongside narration work, maintaining a consistent presence in film and streaming releases.
Anthony Hopkins
Born: 1937
Age: 88
Remains highly active, continuing to lead films and prestige projects across international productions. Has several recent works, Locked being among them.
Judi Dench
Born: 1934
Age: 91
Selectively appears in film and television, balancing health limitations with occasional high-profile acting roles. While ‘retired’ from acting, she has recently done a documentary about her life.
Michael Caine
Born: 1933
Age: 92
Recently appeared in The Great Escaper, his most recent film. He is still engaging in occasional industry involvement.
Clint Eastwood
Born: 1930
Age: 95
Directed Juror No. 2 recently and continues developing new films, remaining active behind the camera into his mid-nineties.
15 Movie Plot Holes That Really Ruin The Immersion
There’s always a degree of suspension of disbelief when it comes to movies, but usually their editorial liberties don’t ruin the immersion and entertainment. Like anything however, there are limits, particularly when it makes the plot of the movie fall apart.
These movies, while all great on their own merits, have moments that make most of the experience fall flat when you think about it for more than two seconds. Of course, expect heavy spoilers for most films listed, since you can’t know if a plot hole affects a film without having watched it.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
At the end of the movie, Batman ‘sacrifices’ himself to stop a nuclear blast from destroying Gotham. He obviously survives, but it isn’t clear how he did so, unless he had a teleporter on his batbelt.
Jurassic Park: The Lost World (1997)
The movie starts with a ship without crew, seemingly slained by something. But the only creature that could’ve done it is the locked away T-Rex, so what took out the crew?
Finding Nemo (2003)
With Nemo and company being trapped in a tank without a lid, why didn’t Nigel the pelican just scoop them out of there?
Saw (2004)
While Gordon is told to kill Adam, Adam himself has no clear goal in the game. He loses before even knowing what the rules were.
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)
The bad guys need all three pieces of the artifact, and Lara has one of them. If she had destroyed it, everything would have been solved.
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
We are shown that Doctor Strange’s portals can cut someone’s hand, but he never thinks of doing that to Thanos while he is subdued by Mantis.
The Matrix (1999)
The whole plot hinges on the idea that the machines are using humans as batteries, even though that makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
Gravity (2013)
Orbital mechanics are heavily simplified, leading to impossible timing and positioning of debris.
Prometheus (2012)
The characters are meant to be highly intelligent scientists, and they spend the whole movie removing their helmets on alien planets and approaching unknown lifeforms.
Inception (2010)
Cobb’s main goal is to get back to his kids in the United States, a country he can’t enter due to murder charges. He never tries to have them fly over to him under supervision.
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
The First Order could have shot down the Resistance or at least sent smaller ships ahead of them. The slow/speed chase had no need to be.
The Hangover (2009)
If the last thing they remember is the rooftop, it makes sense to start there. They would have immediately found their lost friend.
Looper (2012)
Time travel logic contradicts itself, especially with how changes affect the present instantly.
World War Z (2013)
Zombies ignore terminally ill people, but the spread of infection globally contradicts that logic.
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
The rules for time resets shift throughout the film, particularly regarding how and when the protagonist loses the ability.
The Comeback’s Always-On Cameras Have Never Felt More Relevant
The second episode of The Comeback‘s third and final season begins the same way that every episode of the HBO comedy does: with Valerie Cherish on camera.
This time around, however, the aging sitcom star played by series co-creator Lisa Kudrow isn’t being captured by a multicam set up on a studio soundstage or by documentarian Jane Benson’s (Laura Silverman) voyeuristic lens. Instead Valerie is being viewed through the iPhone of her social media manager Patience (Ella Stiller).
As Valerie rolls up to the studio, she prompts Patience to begin filming with a countdown of “5-4-…” but Patience cuts her off with a quick “ready!” The iPhone camera was already rolling. It will always be rolling. That’s a reality that Valerie Cherish can’t quite adapt to. Neither can her manager-turned-producer Billy Stanton (Dan Bucatinsky). “Did you get me on camera, Patience?” he asks from the back seat, and then unsuccessfully attempts to enter into the vertical frame.
Since it first premiered in 2005, the Kudrow co-createdcomedy has played many roles. It’s been a satirical exploration of the TV industry in times of increasing uncertainty. It’s been an examination of a guileless woman who seemingly never lets an avalanche of humiliation dull her (admittedly pained) smile. But more than anything else, it has been a character study of cameras themselves.
The Comeback was part of the TV vanguard of an emerging confessional trend alongside the American version of The Office, which itself was inspired by the British Office of 2001 and the Christopher Guest films of the ’80s and ’90s. Even when compared to both Offices, the Guest movies, and all the mockumentaries that came after them, The Comeback is uniquely interested in the camera as a participant in storytelling, not merely a tool.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in this third season with the introduction of Patience and her iPhone. Speaking to Den of Geek at the SXSW 2026 Film & TV Festival, co-creator Michael Patrick King revealed that he viewed Ella Stiller as much a crewmember of The Comeback as he did an actress, going so far as to use the footage she shot in the show and create custom rigs to keep all other camera operators out of the frame.
“Which was difficult,” Stiller confirms. “There were some days when I was maybe more happy about it than others.”
“It’s challenging! It’s not like anyone can be a cameraman,” Kudrow adds.
Still, the experience of actually filming The Comeback season 3 allowed for Stiller to feel a unique investment in the project.
“[The iPhone] was genuinely my real way in of being in the scene with Valerie. I was actually filming her as if this was for real. To see her in that way was very interesting for me. It made me feel, as the young Gen-Z person on set, that it was a very real role I was stepping into.”
If anyone can understand what it’s like to visually render the show you’re simultaneously acting in, it’s Stiller’s co-star Laura Silverman. Through The Comeback‘s first two seasons, Silverman has starred as Jane Benson, the documentary filmmaker attempting to capture Valerie’s two comebacks. Though in this case, “starring” as Jane Benson often means existing only through Valerie’s frequent calls of the name “Jane.”
In The Comeback season 3’s first episode, set amid the 2023 actors and writers’ strikes, Jane remains behind the camera to document Valerie’s attempted Broadway debut in a production of Chicago. That set-up felt quite familiar for Silverman.
“I had the rig and I was on the monitors and Michael screams in ‘You’re the only coverage I have of this!’ I’m choosing which one to go to and when. It was so much fun. I was so engaged. I was actually doing the thing,” she says.
Then episode 2 finds Jane leaving the documentary game behind and getting a job at Trader Joe’s. Seeing Valerie Cherish’s longtime camera operator in front of the lens feels like seeing a shark on land for the viewer. And indeed it was an adjustment for the performer as well.
“I went into it fully expecting to just be Jane and do choreography with the cameras and make sure they catch this little piece of my hair at this second. But I was very surprised it was a little bit different than that. I got hit in the head with the camera like 90% less this season.”
But moreso than Patience’s phone or Jane’s new job, The Comeback season 3’s biggest visual gambit might just be the embrace of traditional, non-intrusive camerawork.
“In the third season, we contrived a lot of ways to see Valerie and [husband] Mark without the cameras for the first time, which was a risk and a gamble,” King says. “It’s fun for us to see them when there is no awareness that there’s a camera that’s looking at them.”
The fact that Valerie and Mark don’t act much differently on camera or off reveals just how much we’ve all come to expect the tape to always be rolling.
New episodes of The Comeback season 3 premiere Sundays at 10:30 p.m. ET on HBO and HBO Max.
William Shatner Mourns Loss of Starfleet Academy
The news that Star Trek: Starfleet Academy won’t continue beyond the show’s already filmed second season has left a lot of fans in their feelings. Some (the worst kind) are rejoicing that a show they considered too young, too diverse, too queer, or simply too “not Star Trek” is ending. Others are grieving the loss of a show that was trying to do something different, in a franchise that has, in recent years, relied on legacy and nostalgia to power the bulk of its hits. (And future projects, if the push for Star Trek: Year One is anything to go by.) Others, of course, simply didn’t like it that much!
But no matter how you feel about Starfleet Academy’s end — or that rumored cliffhanger season 2 may end on — its loss is an objectively bleak moment in a landmark anniversary year that has turned out to have precious little to celebrate. (At the moment, there is no new Trek in production or official development and that’s a real shame.)
Now, none other than James T. Kirk himself has weighed in on the matter. William Shatner took to X to react to the cancellation news, and had some surprisingly insightful comments to offer about Star Trek as a whole.
Shatner doesn’t really get into the specifics of Starfleet Academy, as a series, but rather took a moment to mourn the loss of the “continuing exploration — physically, mentally, and morally” that each show in this universe represents.
Star Trek exists in more than one world. It exists in the fantasy of science fiction – weird and wonderful things that play unimaginable possibilities of exploration and human endeavor. But it also exists in the fantasy of human beings, the perfection of human beings, the…
He also reflected on the franchise’s long legacy of moments that have pushed boundaries on television, such as the interracial kiss between his character and Lieutenant Uhura that took place in the 1968 episode, “Plato’s Stepchildren.” Occurring just a year after interracial marriage was legalized, it was a statement that challenged racial taboos for many viewers. And per Shatner, such a moment would likely be considered “woke” today.
“During the first airing of my Star Trek series, where a kiss was objectionable, many southern stations pulled the episode & condemned the show,” he said. “Using today’s vernacular, it would absolutely be called ‘woke DEI crap’ because it went against ‘norms’ of society for its time. Not a lot seems to have changed.”
Being “too woke” is a criticism that was frequently lobbed at Starfleet Academy, well before the series ever aired a single episode. The show features queer characters, same sex relationships, a female captain, and a generally inclusive focus.
In addition, Shatner also (quite rightly!) points out that virtually every Star Trekseries that has ever existed has had to contend with a portion of the fanbase that insists it’s not being true to the spirit of what has come before.
“When the Next Gen came out, there was tons of hate because it ‘wasn’t Star Trek,’ and the cast probably was in fear from the fans,” he tweeted. “Again, when the series with Bakula came out, it too was panned by the fans because it ‘wasn’t Star Trek.’ Star Trek is different for everyone.”
In all honesty, that’s a lesson too few Trek fans seem to remember these days. It’s a good thing for this franchise to take risks, and the whole point of a shared universe is to tell different kinds of stories, some that may even be aimed at different kinds of audiences. After all, if we just make the same show over and over, what’s the point?
The second and final season of Star Trek: Starfleet Academy will likely air at some point in 2027.
For All Mankind’s Best Character Is a Crotchety Octogenarian
The following contains mild spoilers for the For All Mankind season 5 premiere.
If you watch Apple TV’s For All Mankind in virtually any capacity, then you’re probably already aware that star Joel Kinnaman’s make-up has become something of a running joke. The alternate history drama is currently in its fifth season, but its narrative stretches across 50-plus years, meaning that Kinnaman, whose Ed Baldwin has been part of the show since its first episode, has had to play a character that’s moving fairly rapidly into some serious old age. (The actor himself is just 46.)
At this point, Old Man Ed (affectionate) is well into his 80s and looks every bit of it. It’s a fair evolution, in the sense that Ed, a legendary astronaut and war veteran, has not exactly lived a quiet or particularly easy life. (It’s equally true that Kinnaman’s various aging makeup and prosthetics has been…well. Let’s just call it uneven at best and outright suspect at worst.) But, it’s also safe to say that even when he’s giving more Grandpa Simpson than space cowboy these days, Ed remains the beating heart of For All Mankind, an avatar of the absolute best and worst that humanity is capable of. (Often at the same time.)
Charismatic, rude, selfish, loyal, repressed, and brave by turns, Ed’s both a product of the environment he came up in and the rare character who has survived (and made) enough history that it’s forced his outlook on many things to at least adapt, if not outright change. He’s been a jerk throughout most of the series’ run, but one that’s easy to understand, if not outright sympathize with, and he often uses his worst traits for the benefit of the things he cares about, be it the space program or the Mars colony he comes to call home.
He’s hard on his family — he once sent Alex crawling through an HVAC shaft to steal a key piece of technology as a child — but will also do anything if he believes it would keep them safe. His loyal to his friends (almost to a fault) and will break any rule if someone he cares about needs them to. As a man and a series lead, Ed truly contains multitudes, and this show will lose a key piece of his identity if and when he finally passes on.
Octogenarian Ed is still a huge jerk, to be clear. Ostensibly under house arrest on Mars for the rest of his life for his role in the Goldilocks asteroid heist, he gleefully leans into being the most stereotypical of annoying old men. He’s brusque with everyone, day drinks with fellow old-timer Lee Jung-Gil, and regularly disrupts the base’s mission command center by gleefully setting off alarms with his ankle monitor. He keeps secrets about his health from his loved ones and only seems to listen to his doctor’s advice when it suits him.
Yet, Ed is also fully willing to use his rude old man powers for good. He’s one of the few who regularly speak up on the issue of Mars autonomy and independence, insisting that the planet’s residents have the right to control their own destiny and reminding everyone that the Mars-6 alliance back on Earth doesn’t care about their well-being as much as they do about the iridium they’re there to mine.
To his credit, Ed’s always been relatively fearless as a leader — and what exactly could the powers that be in Happy Valley do to him at this point anyway — but he’s pushier than usual as season 5 begins. Perhaps this is because he is older now, and possibly/probably dying, and forced to confront ideas of mortality and legacy in new ways. For better or for worse, Ed has always seen Mars as a vocation, the next step on humanity’s expansion into the universe, rather than a get-rich-quick opportunity for corporations and venture capitalists. He’s always believed in the mission of space exploration — where humanity goes next, what does it mean to build a home on another world, rather than an outpost, and it’s a perspective that far too few folks in positions of power on this canvas seem to share.
We all know it’s unlikely to happen, but it’s unlikely that anyone would mind too much if Ed Baldwin really did live forever on this canvas, just gleefully and grumpily stomping into the 2020s with a mean streak and an explorer’s heart. (And whatever Kinnaman’s awful pushing a hundred old-age makeup would inevitably look like.) It’s too difficult to imagine For All Mankind without him.
New episodes of For All Mankind season 5 premiere Fridays on Apple TV.
The Lesser-Known X-Men We Want to See in the MCU
Ever since the post-credits sequence of Ms. Marvel revealed that Kamala Khan is a mutant, we’ve known the X-Men are coming to the MCU. Heck, Disney bought a whole studio to get the rights to Marvel’s Merry Mutants. What we don’t know, however, is who will be in the X-Men line-up, and that’s a very important question.
To be clear, this list isn’t about the X-Men we know we’ll see in the MCU. Jean Grey will likely appear, because that’s almost certainly who Sadie Sink is playing in Spider-Man: Brand New Day. Cyclops is almost always on the X-Men, so he’ll be there. And Wolverine will be there because he’s Wolverine.
But this list is for the characters we want to see, the deep cuts who would make the MCU X-Men as weird and wonderful as the franchise in the comics.
Destiny
Thanks to portrayals by Rebecca Romijn and Jennifer Lawrence, the shapeshifter Mystique has become one of the most recognizable mutants. However, outside of her blue skin and power set, the Mystique of the movies has little to do with the complex character from the comics. Given that Mystique is almost certainly going to be in the next movie line-up, the MCU can better enrich her by also introducing her wife, Destiny.
Initially introduced as a blind member of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, Destiny’s precognitive abilities and concern for the mutant race brought her into alignment with the X-Men several times. Moreover, Destiny has a long lifespan and is, in fact, canonically the Sherlock Holmes character Irene Adler. Between her unique history and power set, Destiny can not only add a compelling new character to the team, but can also improve another X-Man audiences think they know.
Frenzy
The X-Men are a long-running soap opera, which means that there’s a lot of time and space for characters to change. More specifically, it’s not uncommon for mutants to turn from villains to heroes and vice versa, few in a manner more satisfying than Joanna Cargill, the mutant known as Frenzy.
When she first appeared in 1986’s X-Factor #4, Frenzy was a fairly generic supervillain. She possessed super strength and durability and fought the good guys because she was in the Alliance of Evil and they did evil, but had nothing else going on. Over the years, Frenzy has been revealed to be a woman working through a tragic childhood, a person who initially took acceptance wherever she could find it, but eventually learned to adhere to her own principles. Those principles sometimes still put her at odds with Xavier’s students, but Frenzy never fails to fight for what she believes in.
Doop
The X-Men may consist entirely of mutants whose attributes set them aside from the rest of society, but most of whom share basic commonalities with the rest of humanity. There is absolutely nothing common about Doop, a floating green potato man who speaks in his own idiosyncratic language and might just be the most powerful mutant of all time.
First introduced as part of the off-beat 2001 version ofX-Force, later renamed X-Statix, Doop is still a mystery. The nature of his origin and powers is still unclear, and only Wolverine seems to understand him. Yet, Doop stands as an essential part of any proper X-Men adaptation, if only to prove that mutations aren’t always pretty.
Thunderbird
In most cases, the X-Men movies adapt characters from the comics by streamlining their stories, reducing them to the most basic elements. With Thunderbird, the movies can do the opposite, developing a character who received little attention on the page. Born John Proudstar of the Apache tribe, Thunderbird was one of the new additions to the team in 1974’s Giant-Size X-Men #1. However, between his generic ability of enhanced athleticism and the fact that his one defining personality trait was a bad attitude—a quality shared by fellow new recruits Wolverine and Sunfire—Thunderbird died just a few issues later, and was only resurrected recently.
In short, Thunderbird offers the MCU more of a blank canvas, an opportunity to say something new with a character, rather than feel beholden to beats well-established in the comics. The television series The Gifted got to flesh out Thunderbird, where he was played by Blair Redford, but the movies could take it even further.
Armor
Most mutants come to Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters shortly after their powers manifest at puberty, which means that most of the people around the X-Men are teens and not adults. Every so often, a young teen, usually a female character, becomes a focal point for the story. First it was Kitty Pryde, then Jubilee in X-Men: The Animated Series, Rogue serves that role in the movies, and most recently, that part was played by the Japanese mutant Hisako Ichiki, a.k.a. Armor.
Armor can create red psionic suit around her body, an interesting twist on defensive-based heroes. Since her introduction in Joss Whedon and John Cassidy’s Astonishing X-Men, Armor has been one of the more popular new mutants, even serving as the lead of Peach Momoko’s Ultimate X-Men.
Kate Pryde
Before Armor, there was Kitty Pryde, the 13-year-old who joined the team early in Chris Claremont’s run. An earnest girl with terrible fashion sense and a willingness to say what others won’t (sometimes with terrible results), Kitty quickly won over fans, whether she was calling herself Sprite, Ariel, or Shadowcat. Fittingly, Kitty did appear in the X-Men movies, played by Elliot Page in X-Men: The Last Stand and in Days of Future Past.
Those appearances dealt with Kitty as a teen, but the character has long since grown up and is now one of the leaders of the team. Kitty should absolutely appear in a new X-Men film, but we should finally get the adult Kate Pryde instead of the young teen. That means we should see her as a principled leader, someone who knows how to temper her passions with a little patience. And she should definitely have a female love interest, as in the current comics, not her original boyfriend, Colossus, or her one-time betrothed, Peter Quill.
Dazzler
All the X-Men are weird, but few are weirder than Dazzler, at least in terms of her origin. Dazzler was created as part of a collaboration between Marvel Comics and Casablanca Records, who would debut with a disco album along with her comics. Even though the album never materialized, Dazzler eventually made her way onto the X-Men, serving as a key member during the fan-favorite Outback era and appearing in the 1989 animated special “Pryde of the X-Men” and the brawler arcade game it inspired.
Since then, Dazzler has been a consistent C-tier mutant, but rarely appeared outside of the comics. Which is a shame, because her civilian identity as a pop-star and her ability to convert sound into light seems ready-made for the big screen. Rumors that Taylor Swift would appear as Dazzler in Deadpool & Wolverine have proved unfounded, which means the time is right for the character to join the MCU X-Men.
Glob Herman
Given that they’re played by Hollywood actors, most of the X-Men in movies are incredibly attractive. Yet, mutation does not always result in supple curves and hard abs. Case in point, Glob Herman, whose flesh has mutated into translucent, pink jelly. That’s right, he doesn’t get cool powers (although his jelly is flammable, giving him some offensive capabilities) and he looks weird.
Yet, Glob Herman retains a good attitude, at least after his first appearances as a rebel in Xavier’s school. Even better, Herman has become the X-Men’s chef and farmer (think Neelix from Star Trek: Voyager, but from season four on). Glob Herman may not make for the most spectacular fight scenes in an MCU X-Men movie, but he would flesh out the world and provide some welcome humanity, albeit in a mutated form.
Kid Omega
If Glob Herman’s around, then Quentin Quire can’t be far away. One of the most popular, and most controversial, new mutants of the last few decades, Quentin Quire a.k.a. Kid Omega was introduced during Grant Morrison‘s run in the early 2000s. A powerful telepath with a punk streak, Quire originally let his contrarian attitude drive him to attempt a coup in the Xavier School. Morrison set up Quire to be a new villain for the mutants, but he resonated so well with readers that he quickly became an ally, albeit one with a bad attitude.
It’s not hard to see why Quentin Quire would resonate so well with younger readers. Beyond his distinctive look, marked by his dyed pink hair and his ironic t-shirts, Quire captures the adolescent desire to change the world, and he might have the power to do it.
Multiple Man
One must always take Stan Lee‘s declarations about his creative process with several pounds of salt, but one that rings true is that he came up with the concept of mutation because he was tired of inventing origins for his superheroes. The conceit meant that he didn’t need to say how Angel got his wings or why Beast has such very large hands and feet, but it also made it possible for Marvel to feature superheroes with very unlikely powers.
One of the best examples of a hero with weird powers is Jamie Madrox the Multiple Man. Madrox was a Z-level character for the first two decades or so after his debut in 1975’s Giant Size Fantastic Four #4. But since he was added to Peter David’s revamped X-Factor in the 1990s, Madrox has been a fan favorite. Multiple Man’s ability to make endless copies of himself doesn’t have the same immediate appeal as, say, Cyclops’s optic blasts. But if even the dismal X-Men: The Last Stand can have a few great Madrox scenes (helped, of course, by the late Eric Dane), then an MCU movie could do even better.
Forbidden Fruits Director and Stars on Reclaiming Original Sin
Viewers watching the first 15 minutes of Forbidden Fruits might think they’re on familiar ground. We watch as the Fruits—fashion store employees Apple (Lili Reinhart), Cherry (Victoria Pedretti), and Fig (Alexandra Shipp)—swoop through the mall food court like ’80s mean girls, receiving free food from the guys and expressing disgust at those who don’t meet their standards. But when the Fruits welcome newcomer Pumpkin (Lola Tung) into their number through a pagan ritual, it’s clear that director Meredith Alloway has something more complicated in mind.
“I do love the idea that women are told we’re quite literally the origin of evil and sin,” Alloway tells Den of Geek after the SXSW premiere of Forbidden Fruits. “The source material is a play written by Lily Houghton, Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die. In it, all these women are reclaiming that. I think witchcraft, and being in a coven are ways that we make that sin narrative ours.
“I think when women get together and they set an intention, whether it’s magic or literally just everyone talking at a sleepover, that is really powerful.”
Forbidden Fruits certainly features women with intention, both fictional and real. The Fruits may seem like familiar stock characters at first, but Alloway, who co-wrote the screenplay with Houghton, finds more complexity within them, without sacrificing any potential for comedy.
“I think the comedy comes from playing something completely straight,” Reinhart says of her process. “This is the most serious thing in the world to my character, Apple, and that’s where the comedy comes in, because ultimately, this is a silly, crazy thing that these girls are doing. But it means everything and more to them, to Apple in particular.”
“I think what’s really powerful about everyone’s performance is that no one’s actually playing a stereotype,” adds Pedretti. “There are a lot of cues that might lead you to misjudge these women before you get to know them throughout the film. Each character really ends up, hopefully, ends up surprising the audience with their humanity.
“Because, at the end of the day, we’re all humans. For women especially—though men deal with this too, frankly—there’s this idea that we just can’t do it right. If you don’t wear enough clothing, you’re a slut. If you wear too much clothing, you’re a prude. There’s no way to make everyone happy.
“I think that relates to this Biblical idea of being innately flawed and human. But it’s okay to be flawed!”
Shipp adds, “We all play very complex human individuals who just so happen to have been born in a female body in this lifetime, and who are just trying to navigate the structures of this world. The world tells us that we have to be one way, and we can feed into it and play along with it, or rebel against it. We play with those themes in the film.”
For Reinhart, these tensions allowed her to craft a complex portrait of someone in a mental health crisis. “I’ve had a lot of discussions with Meredith about how we’re watching a woman slowly crack, watching the facade of her slowly fading away. When we get to the third act of the movie, my voice changes and my physicality changes.
“I wanted that to show the audience that Apple is shifting, the mask is being dropped, or the robe and veil, shall we say, is being thrown on the ground.”
According to Pedretti, Apple’s breakdown creates tension within her character, Cherry. “Cherry has lost her entire family,” she explains, promising that the information is background and not a spoiler, “So this community is her serenity in her world. It’s everything to her to have a relationship with these women. Having these rules and structure helps her know that she’s okay because, unlike Apple, Cherry understands that there is something deeply wrong with her.”
“Apple’s so busy helping Cherry with healing her wounds and, genuinely, doing what she thinks is best for her, that she’s ignoring her own very open wounds, which mascara and countering cannot cover,” observes Alloway.
The precarious nature of the relationship means that Pumpkin’s addition to the group creates immediate rifts between the Fruits. “Pumpkin is someone who knows everyone and is friends with everyone, but doesn’t have a close group of friends and certainly not a close group of female friends,” observes Tung. “She has a little bit of a mission, which I won’t spoil, but she really does find a sense of belonging with these women. She toes the line of wanting to be part of the community because it’s something really special that she’s never really experienced before.
“They’ve created something so special and intriguing with glitter and rhinestones,” she laughs.
Glitter and rhinestones, witches in malls, mean girls with complicated vulnerabilities: these are the ingredients that Alloway and her cast use to create the spell that is Forbidden Fruits, a spell powerful enough to undo sins of patriarchy.
Forbidden Fruits opens in theaters on March 27, 2026.
20 Movies With Some Fun Facts Worth Knowing
Movies are endlessly entertaining, not only for the stories they tell but also for the production that goes into making them. It’s what makes a re-watch worth it; you get to experience the film with new eyes, this time almost as part of the cast and crew.
These fun facts will take you all over the industry, from budgeting tricks to behind-the-camera accidents. While it’s likely you already saw all of these fantastic films, we will give you the chance to jump back into them, gaining new insight and the excuse to watch them all over again. You’ll laugh at what they laughed, and be shocked at what was and wasn’t planned.
Interstellar (2014)
Christopher Nolan had real cornfields planted (hundreds of acres) just for filming, then sold the crop afterward for profit. Great way to avoid CGI while also not destroying someone’s farm in the process.
The Dark Knight (2008)
The famous hospital explosion scene was, contrary to popular belief, not improvised. Heath Ledger rehearsed it carefully due to the one-take pyrotechnics.
Get Out (2017)
The original ending was much darker, before Jordan Peele changed it to avoid reinforcing real-world trauma. That’s not to say that the current ending is light-hearted, though.
Joker (2019)
Joaquin Phoenix lost over 50 lb (20 kg) for the role, and the weight loss reportedly affected his mental state during filming. He didn’t do it again for Joker: Folie à Deux (at least to those extremes) due to, in part, the dancing required for the film.
Parasite (2019)
The flooding sequence was completely practical: the small district was built inside a pool and flooded in real time.
The Matrix (1999)
Will Smith famously turned down Neo because he didn’t understand the pitch, a decision he later publicly regretted. While it is hard to imagine anyone other than Keanu Reeves in the role, it’s tempting to imagine what that other movie would have been like.
Titanic (1997)
While we see Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio’s character) sketching constantly, the drawings were actually made by the film’s director, James Cameron.
La La Land (2016)
The opening highway scene was filmed during an entire weekend of real road closures in Los Angeles, not on a set. Hence why it feels like it is happening there; it is.
Django Unchained (2012)
Leonardo DiCaprio cut his hand during a scene and stayed in character while bleeding, and that ended up being the take that was used.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Harrison Ford accidentally punched Ryan Gosling during filming, something Gosling reportedly laughed it off. Apparently, Ford bought Gosling some whiskey as an apology.
Her (2013)
After the movie was finished filming, Samantha Morton’s voice was replaced by Scarlett Johansson’s. Meaning that Joaquin Phoenix is reacting to a different voice than the one the audience hears.
The Revenant (2015)
Leonardo DiCaprio actually ate raw bison liver despite being vegetarian. At least he didn’t actually fight a bear.
John Wick (2014)
Keanu Reeves performed most of his own stunts, contributing to the film’s grounded action style and why the camera can follow him with ease.
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Andrew Garfield repeatedly denied his involvement publicly, even to friends, to preserve the surprise. He has claimed that now no one will believe anything he says, much less about Spider-Man films.
The Social Network (2010)
The opening breakup scene took 99 takes, largely to perfect pacing and delivery. You never expect to get something done the first time around, but certainly before the 50th take.
Whiplash (2014)
Miles Teller actually learned drumming for the role and performed many scenes himself, albeit not all of them. The movie wouldn’t have worked if his face and hands were constantly on different frames.
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
The chest-thumping chant was improvised by Matthew McConaughey during rehearsal and kept in the film. Seems to be something the actor already does to center himself.
Black Panther (2018)
Wakandan accents were deliberately unified across actors to avoid inconsistent portrayals of African dialects. It is primarily based on the South African Xhosa language.
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
Most of the film’s iconic building was actually a miniature model, not a full-scale set. It was mostly used for full-scale shots of the Hotel.
Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022)
The filmmakers used cheap practical effects and editing tricks instead of big CGI budgets for many surreal scenes, including the rapid picture montage.
What Will Stephen Colbert’s Lord of the Rings Movie Be About?
Late night host Stephen Colbert has long been a vocal fan of the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. He has an almost encyclopedic command of deep-cut lore. He can speak — or at least recite — Elvish, wrangled a cameo in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, moderated San Diego Comic-Con panels, and even made a Middle-earth short film with the original cast called “Darrylgorn”. There’s not much further for his fandom to go at this point, unless he made a The Lord of the Ringsmovie of his own. Which, as it turns out, is exactly what he’s planning to do.
Warner Bros. and director Peter Jackson have announced that Colbert is currently developing a new live-action film set in the Lord of the Rings universe. The film, which will be called The Lord of the Rings: Shadows of the Past, will be similar to the forthcoming The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum in that it depicts events from The Fellowship of the Ring that never made it to the screen in Peter Jackson’s movies. The Hunt for Gollum will be set in the gap between Bilbo’s 111th birthday and Gandalf’s return to Bag End, following Gandalf and Aragorn as they search for the missing Ring-bearer after he is interrogated by Sauron.
The main events of Shadows of the Pastwill reportedly cover about six chapters of the novel, from Chapter III, “Three is Company,” to Chapter VIII, “Fog on the Barrow-downs.” While some of these events do make it into The Fellowship of the Ring, including Frodo and Sam’s reunion with Merry and Pippin, the first appearance of the Black Riders, and the race to Bucklebury Ferry, the 2001 film skips past several fan favorite moments, including the attack by Old Man Willow, the introduction of Tom Bombadil, the hobbits’ visit to his house, and their subsequent capture by Barrow-wights. Undoubtedly, several of Tom’s extremely weird songs will feature.
Shadows of the Past will have to serve multiple masters, however, as it’s not just a flashback standalone about the happy, weird immortal who likes to sing (awful) songs. It’s also a look at what happens after the War of the Ring, and the Shire that Frodo has left behind.
An Unexpected Framing Device
Per the film’s official logline, the movie is set 14 years after Frodo, Gandalf, and the rest of the Ring-bearers depart from the Grey Havens. Sam, Merry, and Pippin will — for some as yet undisclosed reason — set out to retrace the first steps of their adventure. Maybe this is a pub crawl, who knows? But, elsewhere, Sam’s daughter, Elanor, “has discovered a long-buried secret and is determined to uncover why the War of the Ring was very nearly lost before it even began.”
What all of that means is something we’ll all likely be debating right until the film is released. Is Elanor going to follow after her father and his friends and discover something scary in the Barrow-downs? Is she going to the library to do research, Hermione Granger-style? How much does she even know about her father’s role in the War of the Ring?
Tom Bombadil on the Big Screen
The Elanor question, at least initially, seems to be of less interest to Tolkien fans than what appears to be confirmation that we’re finally getting a big-screen take on what is arguably the author’s weirdest and most divisive character, Tom Bombadil. On some level, this makes sense, as a whole bunch of the most hardcore Lord of the Rings enthusiasts are obsessed with him, even though his presence in the book’s larger story is minimal and, admittedly, pretty weird. A mythical figure who lives in complete harmony with nature, is immune to the power of the One Ring, and generally keeps himself well out of the larger affairs of Middle-earth, Bombadil recently made his onscreen debut in the second season of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. Because that series is a prequel, he was reimagined as a kind of magical mentor to a younger Gandalf who hadn’t yet realized his true identity. (Seriously, don’t ask.)
But other than Tom repeatedly rescuing the hobbits and having a cool river-goddess wife, he doesn’t necessarily offer much in the way of story, at least not in terms of whatever this film is doing with Elanor’s plot. The easiest answer is possibly that she’s looking for some piece of the Barrow-wights’ stolen treasure hoard — the brooch Bombadil meant for Goldberry, maybe? — but that’s a completely wild guess.
Does The Lord of the Rings Need a Sequel?
But the more important question here has nothing to do with Colbert’s enthusiasm for deep cut Tolkien lore or expansive fan service — it’s whether The Lord of the Rings even needs a sequel at all. The author himself famously didn’t want one. And part of the power of Tolkien’s original ending is in knowing that it’s the conclusion of a story — of Frodo’s story specifically.
What makes the ending of The Return of the King so satisfying is how bittersweet it is. Frodo has done what he set out to do. He has saved Middle-earth, protected the Shire, and brought his friends back home. But he has done so by making himself a stranger to it, now too damaged by the trauma of his journey to find the peace he craved there. Some wounds cannot be healed in this life, and it is in that spirit that Frodo passes on to the next, to the Undying Lands and whatever lies beyond.
It’s a beautiful, if heartrending conclusion, and there’s something to be said for remembering the Shire as Frodo would, shining and beautiful and at peace. Do more adventures after his departure sully that memory? Maybe. We don’t know. None has ever existed before. Of course, if there’s anyone who might be capable of proving that idea wrong, it’s the nerds who love the LOTR franchise as much as Peter Jackson and Stephen Colbert do. Oft hope is born when all is forlorn, and all that. We’ll have to wait and see.
Power Ballad Review: Paul Rudd’s Finest
Paul Rudd can sing. Anyone good at picking out folksy harmonies during a throwaway gag in Anchorman might have told you that 20 years ago—or for that matter, if they were among the lucky few to see the severely underrated Friendship last summer. But for everyone else, the opening moments of John Carney’s Power Ballad will be something of a revelation. Standing before a bedecked and beaming wedding party, the three-time Ant-Manstar is able to croon and coo like a yesteryear rock god of early ‘90s glory days: back when Rudd himself was a young man rocking out in Halloween 6 or the occasional Nintendo commercial.
Seeing him belt snatches of “Jesse’s Girl,” and bars of “Everything I Do” is to, perhaps, observe a road not taken. One suspects Rudd and Carney are keenly aware of this too. The arbitrary nature of life—the twists of fate that make one man a musician, and another an accountant with a drum set in the garage, or this artist a legend, and that an aging wedding band frontman forced to survive as “a human jukebox”—is very much at the top of mind in Power Ballad.
As with each of Carney’s films set in or just wistfully outside the music industry (where protagonists are condemned to look in, covetously), Power Ballad is full of good cheer and self-awareness. It’s also marked more than any Carney picture since Once in 2007 with an elegiac appreciation for both the hard roads taken and, more crucially, those left untrod. It’s another dramedy about getting older, but this time with a cagier wisdom that comes with reaching a certain age. This last bit can also be gleaned during the aforementioned opening where Rudd’s Rick is the stud of the moment when he’s belting Bon Jovi, but finds himself deserted by the crowd when singing one of his own originals. No one wants to hear it. At least not from him.
The artist’s frustration to not be pigeonholed, from the zenith of the music scene to its bottom, is crystallized by the fateful intersection at the heart of Power Ballad: a serendipitous meet-cute at a particularly posh wedding party between washed-up Rick and a one-time boy band pop star named Danny (Nick Jonas). Like Rick, Danny is frustrated by his lot in life, albeit as a beloved idol who drives BMWs one day, and a Ferrari the next. He was successful, if only insofar as “the boy band” hunk who can still exist as the center of gravity at a friend’s wedding. His 15 minutes in the wider world, however, appear to be up.
Regardless of status, unsatisfied ambition makes all creatives neighbors. And Rick and Danny hit it off fast by rocking the wedding party and then jamming far better into the wee small hours of the morning in Danny’s palatial suite. It’s there that Rick also shares with Danny a few bars of half-written songs he’s never finished. It’s a good time. Danny even abridges a few of the tunes. Yet groovy memories fade fast fast six months later when Rick hears one of those ditties fully produced, finished, and blowing the minds of everyone at a nearby shopping town in his Irish hometown.
By this time, even his teenage daughter Aja (Beth Fallon) knows all the words to the old school ballad climbing the charts. What Aja, wife Rachel (Marcella Plunkett), and even best friend bandmate Sandy (Peter McDonald) cannot so easily recall though is that “How to Write a Song (Without You)” is one of the countless melodies Rick has been noodling on for years. But the American expat does carry on a little like ol’ raving Ben Gunn when he insists it’s his song, despite the rejuvenated Danny Boy claiming sole credit back in the States or the new anthem of a generation.
The act of collaboration, particularly in the artistic context, can always be a nebulous thing. Famously Paul McCartney and John Lennon attempted to prevent such debates when they agreed to sign every Beatles tune they worked on as “Lennon-McCartney.” Yet even then, there was a time in 2002 when McCartney tried to have more than a few switched to “McCartney-Lennon” to clarify credit.
Having come, if ever so briefly, from the Irish and U.K. rock scene of the early ‘90s, Carney knows about how late night inspirations and jamming can yield, or deny, credit for tunes potentially worth millions of dollars. Does adding a bridge qualify as songwriting credit? What about the whole chorus and lyrics too? Power Ballad deliberately wades into murky legal waters, but it’s in a clear-eyed search for transparent waters.
This is a movie about warmly and affectionately dealing with an artist’s disappointment, as well as the simpler joys in that lifestyle, especially when they come outside of the studio or medium. While much of this review is dedicated to the core dynamic between Rick and Danny—and the movie gains much from Jonas’ own history with the boy-band-adjacent act he fronted with his brothers—the movie is really about an artist of a certain age taking stock of dreams that were waylaid. Or, in Rick’s case, outright stolen.
Rudd’s hero is justified in being severely aggrieved as he scurries around Dublin telling anybody who will listen how that’s his song. There’s a faintly pitiful poor Job quality to his suffering. He might fancy himself Cassandra, insisting the world is ending, but the only person affected by the catastrophe is Rick. And his family.
It is indeed this family we learn that Rick stayed in Ireland for. He met Rachel while touring as a young indie artist and never left. So while the song Danny nicked for international fame might be a love ballad, it is more of an understated domestic bliss that Rick truly covets, particularly in wryly written scenes between the aging hipster and his perennially unimpressed teenage daughter.
The writing is universally good in the Irish sequences, though, gifting Rudd with his second great SXSW premiere in as many years, but also in this case a beautifully crafted role that pairs his natural affability with a textured ennui that comes from the “nice guy” not necessarily getting everything he wanted out of life.
There is an authentic sweetness to the film, born from a genuine union between star and filmmaking voice.
The Los Angeles sequences are perhaps a bit thinner, as Danny’s lifestyle as a callow wannabe hungry for a hit is broadly drawn, particularly with the yes-men vipers circling the heavens. However, even then the ultimate confrontation in the City of Angels between the reluctant thief and the half-mad victim takes on an almost biblical schadenfreude. The artist and the ghosts of their inspirations can never have an easy, linear dialogue about their relationship, yet just starting these often long-deferred debates can be its own kind of therapy. Or dramatic harmony.
Power Ballad premiered at SXSW on March 14 and opens nationwide on June 5.
Bridgerton Season 5 Will Give Francesca The Spotlight She Deserves
Though Bridgerton season 4 only just wrapped up the love story of Benedict and his housemaid turned lady of the Ton new bride, Sophie Baek, the show is already looking ahead to its next love story. It’s just not the one most fans probably expected.
As readers of Julia Quinn’s popular series of novels know, the fifth book in her Bridgerton saga technically follows the love story of Eloise, the family’s marriage-avoidant middle daughter who’s spent most of the TV series insisting that she’s not interested in things like suitors. But the fifth season of the show won’t be following that path.
Instead, Bridgerton will once again shake things up by skipping ahead in its designated romance order and will focus on Francesca’s story in season 5. And while some book purists are no doubt irritated that Bridgerton is once again straying from Quinn’s established path — the show already swapped the order of Colin and Benedict’s romances across seasons 3 and 4 — there’s no doubt that this is the right move, both for the larger series and for Francesca herself.
One of the best things about Bridgerton as a television show versus as a series of romance novels is that it’s much better at telling simultaneous stories. Part of the reason Colin and Penelope’s romance made sense as the centerpiece of the show’s third season is that we’d already spent two full years watching the pair alternately pine for and be completely oblivious around one another. Paying off that relationship at that point was smart — and such is the case with Francesca, who has already spent the past two seasons serving as the show’s primary B-plot.
Her marriage to John Stirling, Earl of Kilmartin, is primarily referenced in hindsight in the books, but the Netflix series gave their quiet, adorably socially awkward love story some much deserved time to shine. And, in the wake of John’s death, it feels completely natural for her to step into the role of leading lady in her own right and for the show to follow her story of second chance romance.
Francesca’s season was always going to be a boundary-pushing one, considering that the show has reimagined her book love interest, Michael Sterling, as Michaela and will use their story to debut its first proper LGBTQ+ romance. The series smartly allowed us to see Francesca and Michaela both becoming friends and grieving John together in season 4, and their story flows much more naturally into the series’ fifth season than Eloise’s might, if only because it will require some fairly significant narrative legwork to set up that by all rights probably should have started by now. (Technically, we’ve already met Eloise’s future husband, though it’s unlikely that casual viewers remember that character all that much.)
So much of Francesca’s story has been about her relationships to others — her marriage, her place in the Bridgerton family, even her status within the marriage — that it will be nice to see her get the chance to not just stand on her own, but to make choices without having to consider anyone else’s feelings. And it certainly feels like a more active path for her character than haunting the edges of someone else’s story, looking heartbroken.
The end of season 4 left the pair at odds — Michaela essentially ghosted Francesca’s request to abstain from traveling for a bit to stay with her in Mayfair — and that’s a pretty big emotional cliffhanger to let sit through another season where they aren’t the main characters. Besides, Francesca more than deserves a chance to reclaim some happiness for herself —and the audience watching at home does too.
Ryan Coogler’s X-Files Reboot Casting Promises Classic Character Dynamic
The X-Files may be about weekly monsters and/or a government conspiracy to join with aliens to inflict black goop on humanity. But it was really about the relationship between the two leads. David Duchovny played Fox Mulder as a slovenly, low-energy true believer, a man used to being pushed to the corners as he continues investigating the paranormal. Conversely, Gillian Anderson played Dana Scully as an intelligent and professional scientist, whose deep religious faith did not prevent her from being skeptical about Mulder’s claims.
We know that the upcoming Hulu relaunch of The X-Files from director Ryan Coogler and showrunner Jennifer Yale will not feature new versions of Mulder and Scully. But the show’s latest casting announcement suggests that some of that original dynamic will be retained, as Himesh Patel will costar alongside the previously-announced Danielle Deadwyler.
As an English actor, Patel unsurprisingly got his start on EastEnders, appearing in 566 episodes as Tamwar Masood. However, most Americans first noticed him as Jack Malik, the only man who remembered the Beatles in the Danny Boyle comedy Yesterday. Yesterday may have met with mixed reviews, but Patel won viewers over with his gentle, likable take on a musician who just got the biggest break of all time. Patel has brought that same warmth to his later roles, as affable agent Mahir in Christopher Nolan‘s Tenet and as beleaguered director Daniel Kumar on the HBO series The Franchise.
Patel’s low on-screen energy will pair nicely with his co-star Danielle Deadwyler, who tends to project quiet intensity. In films such as Till and in the HBO series Station Eleven, in which she co-starred with Patel, Deadwyler plays characters who are serious and determined, even when at odds with potential allies.
But putting together Deadwyler and Patel, the new X-Files seems to promise a relationship like that of Mulder and Scully. But producers have been clear that Deadwyler and Patel are not playing Mulder and Scully, and while there are currently no plans for Duchovny or Anderson to appear, the possibility of a cameo remains. Anderson has revealed that she’s read Coogler’s script for the pilot, and has pronounced it, “fucking cool.”
Even before gaining the blessing of Special Agent Dr. Dana Scully, Coogler’s X-Files sounded great. As made abundantly clear by his Oscar winner Sinners, Coogler knows how to marry rich themes to blockbuster entertainment. Casting two great actors with such complimentary chemistry proves that Coogler and Yale understand what made the original so great, and they’re ready to bring The X-Files into the 2020s.
The X-Files is now in development.
Stranger Things: Tales From ’85 Trailer Takes a Bloated Franchise Back to Basics
By the time that Vecna was finally defeated in the series finale at the start of this year, Stranger Things had gotten a lot bigger and a lot messier than it had been. Not only had the Netflix series spawned a play, video games, and a whole lot of merchandise at Target, but it had become more about a psychic boy from the ’50s who found a way into another reality and summoned a monster. Also, Russians were involved.
There’s little to none of that stuff in the latest trailer for Stranger Things: Tales From ’85, an animated series that takes place between the show’s second and third seasons. In the latest trailer, we see the central quartet of boys, joined by Max and El, having snowball fights and busting each other’s chops. They gain a new friend in the form of punk rocker Nikki Baxter (Odessa A’zion), who joins the fight against a different set of beasties from the Upside Down.
The Duffer Brothers have described Tales From ’85 as a throwback to Saturday morning cartoons of their youth, a statement that seems ludicrous when you compare the fluid CGI animations on display in the trailer to the cheap and rigid stuff that ’80s kids watched. But the trailer does promise a more wholesome adventure, one based around the core concept that made Stranger Things such a phenomenon when it launched in 2016.
Originally, Stranger Things resonated with viewers because of its sense of childhood nostalgia. Borrowing heavily from the novels of Stephen King and the films of Steven Spielberg, Stranger Things followed a quartet of nerdy kids whose lives change when one disappears and a telekinetic girl called Eleven arrives. The mystery of what happened to Will Byers, the hints about a dangerous realm called the Upside Down, and the supporting cast of teens and adults only served to enhance that concept.
But over time, Stranger Things seemed to lose site of its best qualities, bloating into a show about teens (well, young adults playing teens), adults in a Gulag, and so, so much lore. Even though Stranger Things continued to be a topic of conversation in pop culture spaces and pull in massive viewership numbers, the initial excitement had dissipated.
Will Tales From ’85 bring that excitement back? It does have to overcome the loss of the original actors, as new voice performers have come in to play beloved characters, including Broadway’s Jeremy Jordan as Steve Harrington. Some may find the angular designs and new voices too great a barrier.
But for those who just want to see kids in the ’80s have cool monster adventures, then Tales from ’85 promises to be a small-scale, old-school good time.
Stranger Things: Tales From ’85 debuts on Netflix on April 23, 2026.
Disney’s Korean Reimagining of The Americans Is the Right Kind of Series Revival
Reboots, revivals, and reimaginings are more popular than ever in television right now, from the forthcoming series adaptation of the Harry Potter franchise, to the Firefly animated sequel, and the failed Buffy the Vampire Slayer follow-up that Hulu canceled before it ever even made it out of the pilot stage. It makes sense then that someone somewhere was eager to try to remake The Americans, FX’s critically acclaimed series about undercover KGB spies living a regular American life in 1980s suburban D.C., even as they worked to bring down the U.S. government. The series racked up 18 Emmy nominations over the course of its run and a Lead Actor win for star Matthew Rhys. (Justice for Keri Russell’s unfairly snubbed performance, though!) But the new take we’re getting isn’t one anyone likely expected.
Rather than attempt to copy the (very recent and very beloved) original, Disney+ is taking a different tack, greenlighting The Koreans, a big-budget, local language reimagining of The Americans that revolves around a pair of North Korean spies masquerading as a happily married couple in 1990s South Korea. Like Phillip and Elizabeth Jennings before them, this couple will appear to be ordinary citizens to their neighbors and friends, all while secretly working to destabilize the South from within. As remake ideas go, it’s brilliant! Don’t believe me? Apparently, Russell and Rhys have already given their blessing to the project.
Thematically, The Koreans will undoubtedly deal with many of the same issues that its predecessor did: Family, loyalty, identity, patriotism, and bonds to a homeland you aren’t necessarily part of anymore. But by shifting the series to the 1990s and changing its setting to the more volatile Korean peninsula, just as a wave of democratization and cultural modernization was unfolding in the South, the various political perspectives and pressures this show will tackle will be completely different. (And will probably feel especially new for the English-speaking audience that Disney is obviously hoping will also tune in.)
But in a world where far too many remakes are just reskinned and/or repurposed versions of the thing that came before, it’s incredibly refreshing to see a creator who plans to use a familiar concept to say something entirely new. Obviously, the conflict between North and South Korea, which are immediate neighbors and home to citizens with family and loyalties on both sides of the Korean Military Demarcation Line, is going to produce a very different take on this particular premise than the steadily escalating Cold War antagonism between the United States and Russia. But that’s precisely what makes this kind of reimagining so interesting; we already know it’s not going to simply recreate what we’ve seen before.
The Koreans will star Squid Game’sLee Byung-hun and Heavenly‘sHan Ji-min and stream on Hulu in the U.S. and Disney+ internationally.
Kit Steinkellner Has Some Questions About Television… and Vampires
Few creatives have a more intimate understanding of the challenges and joys of producing television in the streaming era than Kit Steinkellner.
The playwright, screenwriter, and comic book author burst onto the TV scene in 2018 when she created Sorry For Your Loss, a critically acclaimed meditation on grief starring Elizabeth Olsen, Kelly Marie Tran, and Jovan Adepo. Despite its creative success and the caliber of talent involved both in front of and behind the camera, the series was canceled after two seasons and 20 episodes.
Much of the show’s struggle to capture an audience stemmed from its platform’s inability to do the same. That’s because Sorry For Your Loss premiered on the now-defunct Meta VOD service Facebook Watch. The House That Zuck built dipped its toe into episodic storytelling in 2018 and then promptly yanked that toe back out once it realized how hard this whole entertainment thing was.
To Facebook’s credit, Sorry For Your Loss avoided the fate of some other streaming shows that have back locked away in vaults never to be seen again, as it is currently available to stream on Tubi and Prime Video. Still, the experience of producing an ambitious project amid streaming’s unprecedented (and ultimately unsustainable) content boom, was profoundly educational for Steinkellner.
“One of my Woody the cowboy pull string catchphrases is ‘I’m always grateful and I’m always annoyed.’ And that’s the truth,” she tells Den of Geek. “But I am, in a lot of ways, a poster child of that moment. I was a poster child of that bubble, that boom. A lot of the things that we struck for in 2023 with the WGA are things that I experienced – the high highs the low lows. But ultimately I think I am a lot more grateful than I am annoyed.”
Now Steinkellner is going fully independent with her next project. Are We Still Married?, which premiered at the 2026 SXSW Film & TV Festival, is a compelling work of short speculative fiction. The title is just one of many questions that Steinkellner and the story’s characters have about the central conceit of a husband Jack (played by Dustin Milligan) who has been turned into a vampire and needs to convince his still-human wife Laura (Taylor Misiak) to let the right one in.
Are Jack and Laura still married or did death do them part? Can Laura safely let Jack in the house or will he drain her arteries for sustenance? Does he operate by the traditional vampire rules or will he sparkle in the sun? Through its scant 11-minute running time, Are We Still Married? doesn’t offer up any easy answers (except for the sparkle in the sun thing, that’s a definitive “no), but it does leave plenty of room for exploration and storytelling growth. In fact, Steinkellner is so interested in pursuing that growth that she both filmed a TV pilot and wrote a feature-length script of the concept.
“I’ve actually not done this with other ideas before but I’ve pretty thoroughly explored both options,” she says. “Ultimately I just want to keep telling this story. It’s an interesting moment for us where both feel viable. I think the next step will reveal itself.”
Before the premiere of Are We Still Married? at SXSW, we caught up with Steinkellner to discuss processing trauma, her vampiric inspirations, and the ephemeral nature of art. What follows is that conversation, lightly edited for clarity.
Den of Geek: This story is about a newly-vampirized husband outside his home asking for his wife to let him in and offering up reasons why she should. Where’d you get that idea?
Look, I was hellbent on directing something. I gotta direct something, it’s going to be independent, it’s going to be small, in one location like a house. So the question for me became “how do you make a house feel as cinematic as possible?” Then I remembered something that happened about 11 years ago. My husband did get bit by a bat. It was crazy. That doesn’t happen. Except when it does. He got a rabies shot and he was OK. I don’t know how you process trauma in your marriage but comedic bits is usually our go-to move. We just started cracking vampire jokes.
At a certain point he was just very lightly like “but if I became a vampire, you would let me back in the house, right?” I paused and he didn’t like that pause. We had a very spirited debate about what it would mean to have something happen that’s nobody’s fault but at the same time was something we never agreed to. It sets both of you on a wildly different path from what you were on. As I started thinking about what could happen in this house, this thing in the back of my brain rolled to the front. And the more I thought about it, the more I thought about writing this night in their lives, figuring out what that would look like, and figuring out what would happen next.
Some vampire properties that are mentioned in passing in this pilot are Twilight, Interview with the Vampire, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. What are some of your vampire inspirations?
Those are touchstones. I also love Only Lovers Left Alive. It’s Tilda Swinton and Tom Hiddleston playing glam rock Bowie vampires. I interpret it as a genre metaphor about climate catastrophe because they can’t drink contemporary human blood because of microplastics. They keep having to go to blood banks to find blood from before a certain date. I just love that one. I love the original Let the Right One In. I rewatched it recently. I think I always love a vampire story where there’s genre as metaphor front and center. That one is very much about coming of age and being an isolated kid who finds another isolated kid – the things that are deeply positive about that, the things that are deeply challenging about that. There’s a lot you can do in terms of genre as metaphor.
I’m glad you mentioned Let the Right One In because I feel that that aspect of vampirism – the needing to be let in – is the one that people forget about most frequently. Thankfully every decade or so, a major vampire story comes around to remind people of it. Are you grateful that Are We Still Married? is premiering on the heels of Sinners, which makes that a major plot point?
It’s so interesting. Yeah, I am. I just love art being in conversation with each other. I love this giant metaphorical party where we all have our wine glasses and are meeting and talking with each other. They’re so wildly different. With Sinners; it’s Coogler, it’s From Dusk Till Dawn, it’s institutional racism. He’s tackling very, very different things on a very different budget. We do have the same supernatural trope at our core but I would argue over on my side we’re doing ‘70s Cassavettes, Gena Rowlands’ dramas, Marriage Story, tonally a little bit more like Nora Ephron or Linklater’s “Before” trilogy. They couldn’t be more different and we’re starting at the opposite end of the spectrum but the fact that we have the same origin point, I just find it thrilling.
Vampires come in all different shapes, sizes, and rules. A lot of the back and forth between husband and wife in this pilot is trying to figure out those rules. Did you have any questions about vampirism that didn’t make it into the final product?
A crucial plot point is that the bat that bites Jack does not stick around to explain vampirism to him. So basically he has about as much information about this thing as we do. He has his pop culture references but he doesn’t actually know what being a real life vampire entails. I think it’s a really interesting dilemma to put a character in. What if you have no mentor or guide post? Which part of this stuff is real? I think we are playing by most of the vampire rules though. We didn’t have any mirror shots but if we did I would have VFX’ed his reflection out. We’re not doing Stephanie Meyers, he’s not gonna sparkle in the sunlight. We’re playing with those traditional Dracula-established vampire rules.
How did you go about casting Taylor Misiak and Dustin Milligan in this?
It was thrilling. To the point of this thing being really scrappy, my producer and I just reached out to their reps and asked if they were avail (or tech avail). I loved Dustin in both Schitt’s Creek and Rutherford Falls, which is a Peacock show that less people have seen. But I’m crazy about him. And Taylor is my favorite part of Dave. It is tremendous but for me she is the emotional heartbeat of that show.
They’re so wildly gifted in so many regards. They’re just consummate actors who are known for hard comedy. But my goal in casting or any hiring decision is to ask myself “how would this thing be a wonderful next paragraph in your career?” To give them a piece where pull out everything in their bag and leave it on the screen, that just felt like a thrilling opportunity. It felt that that’s what they both saw. This was three night shoots! Night shoots kind of make people crazy. At a certain point, you kind of feel like your’e in The Thing or The Shining. And they were just wild joys to hang out with at 3 a.m.
This is submitted to SXSW as a TV pilot. Did you always see if that way and would you like to continue in this world?
You’re asking the right question. I originally knew what the night looked like. I knew it was chapter one and I wanted to figure out what subsequent chapters looked like. Transparently, we have explored both routes. I did write a feature inspired by this that was on this past year’s Black List, which was a wild honor. At the same time, in having a conversation with South by, part of the independent TV requirement is to submit a series bible. I’ve actually not done this with other ideas before but I’ve pretty thoroughly explored both options. Ultimately I just want to keep telling this story. It’s an interesting moment for us where both feel viable. I think the next step will reveal itself.
I think this is a big question so we’ll probably end on it. I want to pick your brain about television itself as someone who probably had an interesting experience in modern television: writing Sorry For Your Loss, which was considered to be a very good TV show with a very big movie star in it that nevertheless premiered on a streaming service with like six other shows and no longer exists. Broadly, what is that experience like and where do you see TV going in the modern era?
One of my Woody the cowboy pull string catchphrases is “I’m always grateful and I’m always annoyed.” And that’s the truth. When I think back about making Sorry For Your Loss, we had a murderer’s row of actors, we had the best writers, all of our directors were like Sundance stars, and we made 20 episodes of something that is one of my proudest accomplishments. I love it. We were on a platform [Facebook Watch] that didn’t stick around long enough to find its footing. You really do have to, as a platform, be invested in spending five-to-10 years building like an Amazon, like an Apple.
At the same time there are shows on major platforms that have been pulled. The thing is you can still find our show online. It’s very gratifying to have people slip into my DMs and continually find it. I think I have a lot more gratitude than I have annoyance. But I am, in a lot of ways, a poster child of that moment. I was a poster child of that bubble, that boom. A lot of the things that we struck for in 2023 with the WGA are things that I experienced – the high highs the low lows. But ultimately I think I am a lot more grateful than I am annoyed. I’m so proud of how we made it and I’m excited to make more content in both a smaller way and a larger way that reaches eyeballs. Look, we live in a chaotic universe. We don’t get to control variables and we don’t get to weird science the way our art is received or create the perfect environment. Honestly, I’m just so glad we got to make it.
Well said, it was indeed a big question and I’m glad you tackled it!
Can I say one more thing about it? [Laughs] Do I have like 30 seconds?
[Laughs] Sure!
I read this thing several years ago. There are these Buddhist monks – in the steps of the Himalayas, I believe. They live in these monasteries of giant plazas. They will make these elaborate sand paintings, mandalas, outside. It takes them weeks and weeks. In making those mandalas they’ve signed up for the fact that the wind is gonna blow the art they’re creating away. It might blow them away in a day, or in a couple weeks. They don’t really have control over how long the art lasts. But that’s not why they’re making it. They’re making the art for the sake of making it. I believe it’s to teach these monks patience and perseverance. I think about it all the time and try to be a creature of the moment and just do the best I can in that moment. The truth is that no one can control the outcome, how it’s received, or how long it lasts. What you can control is how you show up for the moment.
They Will Kill You Review: Ready or Not Here It Is
What is it about New York City hotels and grand old apartment buildings? Most of them are haunted anyway, but in the hands of Hollywood and various other filmmakers, they become positively demonic. From Polanski’s Dakota on the Upper West Side in Rosemary’s Babyto the Continental that Keanu Reeves keeps checking into, but never seems to leave in all those John Wicks, luxury Manhattan space is synonymous with murder and monsters. And in writer-director Kirill Sokolov’s They Will Kill You, there’s so many of each that one speculates the cleaning bill must be in the eight or nine figures.
Although there’s (some) story logic to that in this one. See, Zazie Beetz’s Asia Reaves is technically taking on a want ad when she shows up on a rainy night at the Virgil, a posh NYC haunt that looks like it’s situated somewhere on the corner between Greenwich Village and South Africa tax incentives. It is there that an ex-convict as nominally desperate as Asia takes a job where she will work under a peculiar Irish superintendent named Lilith Woodhouse—Patricia Arquette doing a bit that crosses somewhere between Mary Reilly and Darby O’Gill. Lilith’s stern demeanor seems to suggest the turnover rate should be high, and the tenants do nothing to dissuade this notion since most of them are played by familiar faces as snobby kooks (Heather Graham) or sketchy lechers (Tom Felton).
All of it feels a lot like they’re putting on a bit, and that’s because they are. They Will Kill You barely wastes 15 minutes before the creeps and cretins try to harass and sacrifice the new maid, which we soon learn is their wont. Like the Virgil’s namesake, this building knows its way around Hell, with a landlord in the basement who is nothing less than an absolute devil. It might sound spooky, but in practice it’s a little more diabolical than Scooby-Doo.
This in spite of aesthetic happily reaching—anxiously, even—for Tarantino at his most Grand Guignol in the Kill Bill bloodbaths. The fight scenes between Beetz, Felton, and even a possessed Arquette at one point (or at least a committed stunt double) rely on voluminous splatter effects erupting like geysers, and smartass-cool kid talk and posturing, a la the samurai lighter Beetz carries around and later shares with her long-lost sister (Myha’la), who as luck would have it also has a room in this den of inequity.
One cannot envy either Sokolov or Warner Bros. with the release of They Will Kill You. While movies about Satanic cults among the rich and moneyed are nothing new, even back when Radio Silence gave it fresh devilish coat of paint in Ready or Not, one imagines no one making Kill You could have guessed that Radio Silence’s Ready or Not 2 would also feature estranged sisters—or that Searchlight would move its release date up to March 20 so as to beat Sokolov’s film to market (not that either may find much stall space with Project Hail Mary continues to make its orbiting rounds). Worse still, both opened at SXSW, with the better of the two premiering first. It wasn’t They Will Kill You.
While Sokolov’s action sequences and fight choreography seem much more elaborately staged and meticulously designed than either Ready or Not, its social commentary amounts to more of a single, trailing off sentence, and its eat-the-rich table-setting adorned with mostly empty dishes. Others feature mere plastic fruit to gnaw on. Even the sisterly dynamic with performers as charming as Beetz and Myha’la proves threadbare.
Not that there isn’t some base thrill to be had in the Virgil. A handful of fight sequences along barren halls proves the architecture isn’t the only thing that’s brutalist in this place. And the fiendish glee with which Sokolov’s picture reveals how the pampered and privileged earn their immortality in this joint is the kind of gonzo gag that 20 years ago would have been the pride and joy of a grindhouse throwback dropped by Dimension Films.
There is an audience for They Will Kill You, but there’s just not enough tainted meat on this Satanic beast to ever earn a real cult following of its own.
They Will Kill You premiered at SXSW on March 17 and opens nationwide on March 27.
Star Trek: The Next Generation Star Remembers When They Weren’t Real Trek
Unsurprisingly, news of Star Trek: Starfleet Academy‘s cancelation after two seasons has brought out some strong opinions among Trekkies. Some were genuinely delighted by the show’s mix of Trek lore and high school drama. Others thought the series showed promise, but needed some correction in later seasons, just like most other Trek shows. And a particularly vocal group praised the news as it ends a series that wasn’t real Trek.
One cannot help but think of those fans when hearing about the memories Gates McFadden, Dr. Beverly Crusher of The Next Generation fame, shared about early fan reaction to her show. “In the beginning I was actually really scared of fans and conventions,” McFadden told attendees at MegaCon 2026 (via The Popverse). “I didn’t know what was expected of me. And also in the beginning, the fans were not as complimentary as they are now. They wanted it to be the original show. But I’ve learned so much about the show and the franchise, let alone how much importance it has been in individuals’ lives.”
In the defense of some of those fans, TNG had a famously rough launch. Built out of the remains of a sequel series called Star Trek: Phase II, which would have been about Captain Kirk and the Enterprise crew on new adventures, and seen by creator Gene Roddenberry as a way to regain the control he had lost over the movies, TNG‘s first two seasons suffered from bland plots, out-of-date clichés, and a checked out Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard. The series didn’t find its groove until season 3, when it became the classic series it is today.
Fans use the phrase “Growing the Beard” to describe the uptick in quality of a Star Trek show, a reference to Riker gaining facial hair after season 1. In fact, all of the ’90s Trek shows underwent similar arcs. It took two seasons of Deep Space Nine for the Dominion to become the major threat (and for Sisko to grow his goatee and shave his head). Voyager became a much better show when Seven of Nine joined the crew in the season 4 premiere (after Janeway styled her hair into a bob). And the fourth of final season of Enterprise is far, far better than anything that came before, despite all the hairstyles staying mostly the same.
Modern Trek shows haven’t had quite the same arc. Discovery did get much better after jumping 900 years in the future at the end of season 2, and Star Trek: Picard was stronger when it turned into a TNG reunion for its third season. But Lower Decks and Prodigy were good all the way through their runs, and Strange New Worlds is threatening to take the opposite trajectory, as the third season is far worse than anything in the first two.
There’s no telling if Starfleet Academy would have followed the same trajectory of ’90s shows, or if it would have stayed the same, or if it would have dipped in quality. But McFadden’s comments remind us not only that taste is subjective, but that “real Trek” is often hated by fans, at least at first.
They Will Kill You: The True Story That Inspired the Horror Comedy
In the upcoming genre mash-up They Will Kill You, Zazie Beetz plays a desperate woman who takes a job as a housekeeper in a mysterious apartment, only to learn that she’s the target of a Satanic cult. Directed by Kirill Sokolov, who co-wrote the script with Alex Litvak, They Will Kill You combines horror, comedy, kung fu, and romance. And, apparently, it’s a true story. Sort of.
“Ten years ago, my wife and I rented an apartment on the 16th floor of a giant building. A week after we moved in, we realized that we were the only two people in the entire building under the age of 65,” Sokolov recalls to Den of Geek. “I started doing renovations in the kitchen, and behind the cabinet I found a huge hall leading into my neighbor’s apartment. My wife and I started a running joke: ‘We live in the middle of a cult, one night we’ll wake up, and they’ll be around our bed in cloaks and masks, and they’ll sacrifice us,'” he laughs.
“Then I watched Rosemary’s Baby and realized, ‘Oh my God, I was in that building! I was in that same situation,'” he continues. “Okay, it wasn’t enough to bring the Antichrist into the world, but that’s how this movie appeared.”
Only from such audacious beginnings could a movie like They Will Kill You appear. The film moves through various genres and tones, promising twist after twist, which is exactly what drew the cast to the project.
“I just loved whipping through this script,” gushes Beetz. “The way that it’s written is incredibly engaging. It’s funny and I was laughing through it. And then I met Kirill via Zoom, who is just such a bright and exuberant individual that I felt his passion and love for this story. It made me excited to jump on.”
“I loved Kirill’s first film [Why Don’t You Just Die? from 2018] and I thought he had a really interesting voice as a filmmaker,” adds Patricia Arquette, who plays superintendent/cult leader Lilith. “He throws so many genres together in this movie: martial arts comedy, gore, horror—all that kind of stuff.
“And then I loved this story. I loved Zazie getting to be this superhuman, driven by love to become a human warrior who’s working from goodness and fighting against evil.”
The story drew the attention of producers Andy Muschietti and Bárbara Muschietti, who helped get the film made. “We were sent this incredible script, and Andy and I read it right away,” remembers Bárbara. “Andy and I read hundreds of scripts, and we barely ever get surprised. This time, we read it and we both thought, ‘We want to see this movie!’
“And then we talked to Kirill, and he’s an atomic bomb of filmmaking. Immediately, you can tell that this guy knows what he’s doing, knows what he’s saying, knows what he’s writing.”
“The thing that really blew me away was the script,” Andy agrees, but he continues, “I then confirmed it by watching Why Don’t You Just Die? and then by meeting Kirill. He knows how to manage humor. He has this refined sense of visual sarcasm. Humor comes not from what’s being said, but from what’s being shown.
“There’s a grotesque slapstick to his work that I align very much with. You can see some of it in the script, but you see all of it in the movie. That’s something I really appreciate and wanted to see on screen.”
While he’s happy to take his producer’s compliment, Sokolov is quick to point out that the film’s mix of tones was built into the script.
“When Alex and I wrote the script, we knew we were doing horror, but we wanted to play with the genre. We wanted a movie that will surprise the audience not just with the story twists, but with the emotions they’ll get from it. So every 10 minutes, the movie takes a huge 180-degree turn to go in a different direction.
“I’m so appreciative and honored that Andy and Bárbara believed in this movie,” he gushes. “Then from that moment, you start to realize that if these guys believe in the movie, then maybe cool cast members will believe in it. And step-by-step, we found an amazing team and amazing crew to build it up.”
According to Shokolov, quality collaborators are all the more important, given the film’s mix of tones. “It’s very exciting to make this kind of movie, but it’s also very challenging because you can easily fall out with the audience when you bring a joke or something that turns the audience away. So you have to find actors who can manage these tonal shifts.
“I believe that if you have good characters on screen, you should hire really shitty people to play them. And, it’s the opposite too, so if you have bastards on screen, you bring in nice people to play them, because they immediately feel the conflict, and it’s like they won’t have to perform. And just our luck, we had to find all really nice people, because everyone’s an asshole in this movie.”
Joking aside, Sokolov’s cast of really nice people found his direction invaluable to guide them through the insanity of They Will Kill You. “Kirill kept reminding us that, yes, there’s action, and, yes, there’s comedy,” says Beetz. “But the most important part, at least for me, was the truth of the moment. If I can make it feel truthful in that moment, and the comedy is going to come with the way it’s edited, or with a needle drop, or with a cut.
“So I’m not playing against it or for it. I’m letting it be true, whatever’s happening.”
As Beetz’s comments reveal, “truth” is the watchword for They Will Kill You, no matter how over-the-top the action gets or how many genres it crosses. Which makes sense, given that the entire thing stems from the true story of a remodel in an apartment filled with the elderly.
They Will Kill You opens in theaters on March 27, 2026.
Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen Ending Explained: What Really Happened to Rachel?
This article contains spoilers for Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen.
Netflix’s new horror series Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen uses its title to let you know right off the bat that something very bad is indeed going to happen in the final episode, which is packed with twists and payoffs.
Camila Morrone (The Night Manager) and Adam DiMarco (The White Lotus) star as Rachel Harkin and Nicky Cunningham in the Duffer brothers-produced show as an engaged couple heading to a family cabin in the woods for their nuptials, only to find that death has thrown a spanner in the works: Rachel’s bloodline is cursed, and she has to marry her soulmate or die. But is Nicky really her soulmate, or is Rachel doomed?
Let’s unpack the ending of Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen…
What Exactly Was the Curse?
First, we need to unpack the lore of the curse itself. In episode four, we get to see what happened when Rachel’s mom married her dad, thanks to an old home video. The pair apparently weren’t soulmates, so her mom died horribly after tying the knot, but not before having a terrible premonition about Rachel’s wedding. Her dad was then compelled to save Rachel by cutting her out of her mom’s belly, while a young Jules Cunningham (Nicky’s brother) watched from under the bed, smothering his screams. “Tell her it’s real,” her mom had begged a traumatized Jules before fading away.
Rachel’s dad later confronts her, telling her she will die if she marries Nicky. A broken man, he has kept any warnings of the family curse to himself until now, so Rachel has been unaware of her predicament, but those warnings have indeed been passed down from generation to generation until Rachel came along.
Rachel goes back to the bar to squeeze more info from The Witness (Zlatko Buric) whom she had stabbed earlier, but then spotted in her parents’ wedding video. The Witness appears to be immortal—he hasn’t aged a day. He tells her about the curse, which dates back to his great-great-great-grandparents’ time. His great-great-great-grandfather had died in a hunting accident, and his great (x3) grandmother made a bargain with death. He would bring her groom back to life, but only if she believed he was her soulmate. Her children were afflicted with the same challenge, a curse that would extend through the bloodline from the original union, forever: marry your soulmate or pay death what he is owed.
The Witness eventually met a woman called Marianne and fell in love. On the day of the wedding, a mysterious man told him he must marry his soulmate by sundown, or die. After hearing this, The Witness admits he took the cowardly way out and left Marianne at the altar. As a result, the curse spread to Marianne and her new husband, Rachel’s great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, Thomas. That’s how Rachel’s family became cursed. The only way she could have escaped the curse was to never get engaged in the first place, which is the route some of her ancestors took when they found out about it.
Why Didn’t Rachel Die from the Curse?
Rachel appears to be screwed as the wedding ceremony nears. She didn’t really want to marry Nicky when she accepted his proposal; she kind of agreed to it just to make him happy. Not only that, she’s decided to throw caution to the wind and reject the ritual love potion that will ensure she and Nicky are indeed soulmates. Yet she approaches the altar truly believing that she and Nicky will work out, even as Nicky’s belief in marriage crumbles after hearing about his parents’ flawed relationship. Unfortunately, Nicky’s newfound cold feet about marrying Rachel mean the wedding is abandoned, and his family begin to die horribly.
Rachel also appears to die from the curse after Nicky tries to put the ring on her finger and complete the ceremony to save his family, finally believing the curse is real. Since she no longer feels they’re soulmates, Rachel haemorrhages and falls in the snow, covered in blood. After some time, though, she is revealed to be fine. Rachel picks herself up, finds a note next to The Witness’s body that says “Your turn,” and drives away.
We’ve been told that if a bride or groom chickens out of their marriage before sundown, as The Witness did, the curse spreads to the partner’s bloodline, but the original cursed person in the relationship also becomes immortal. This is what happened to The Witness in the past with his beloved Marianne, which is why he has lived for over 200 years. However, with Marianne’s bloodline no longer at the center of death’s focus, The Witness expires, and Rachel becomes the new immortal.
Like The Witness, Rachel has been punished for betraying death’s bargain, even though it wasn’t her fault. Nevertheless, she is now condemned to bear witness to all the weddings in Nicky’s bloodline, which is why she makes sure to tell Jules and Nellie’s young son Jude to be careful picking a partner before she leaves. Rachel will likely live forever, or at least until someone in Nicky’s bloodline experiences “cold feet” before their wedding.
Who Died and Who Was Spared?
Various members of Nicky’s family bleed out profusely at the reception and expire when the curse spreads to them, including his narcissistic mother Victoria (Jennifer Jason Leigh) who dies after admitting she was involved with another man when she married Nicky’s dad, even though he loved her unconditionally. Sister Portia (Gus Birney) also kicks the bucket after it emerges she’s been hiding an inadvisable Vegas wedding in her past.
Nicky lives, just as The Witness’s jilted fiancée did, able to witness the carnage that ensues. However, Jules (Jeff Wilbusch) and Nellie (Karla Crome) are also spared from the fatal effects of the curse, much to their surprise.
Wait, Why Didn’t Jules and Nellie Die?
In the third episode of Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen, we spend some time with Jules and Nellie. Jules is taking a bath when Nellie comes in and starts provoking him while applying makeup. It’s clear that these two are in an acrimonious relationship. “You used to be nicer,” Nellie says pointedly. Jules jokes that if she wanted a nice guy, she should have married ex-boyfriend Nicky, but also says that Nellie doesn’t want a nice guy because she isn’t nice herself. There is a dangerous yet still passionate connection between the couple, who are planning an imminent divorce.
So why didn’t Jules and Nellie die when the curse spread to Nicky’s family? If they’re getting a divorce, surely Jules and Nellie can’t be soulmates, right? Well, Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen doesn’t agree with that notion. However messed up and broken their relationship is, they’ve proved to be perfect for each other in some twisted way. The curse skips them, satisfied that they’re soulmates …it’s just that their version of “soulmates” isn’t a cookie-cutter marriage of sweetness and light. “I don’t know what my life looks like without you,” Jules admits when Nellie asks him why he hasn’t signed the divorce papers. Whether they stay married or not doesn’t seem to matter; they’re free.
Something interesting about the curse is also revealed in the bathtub scene: Nellie reveals that Jules has been married before, and it failed. Perhaps it doesn’t matter how many times you wed, as long as you marry your soulmate at some point before the curse hits your bloodline. But as Nellie also says in episode six, “There’s no cosmic assurance that your marriage is going to work out.”
What Does the Song at the End Mean?
When Rachel gets into the truck, she turns on the stereo, and We Will Not Be Lovers by The Waterboys starts playing. The song tells the story of a “doomed from the start” relationship, which is perhaps a little too on-the-nose for Rachel.
Try as she might to skip the track, the same song plays. We then see the injured fox that Nicky couldn’t catch and put out of its misery, leaving the cabin’s grounds at the same time as Rachel does. The symbolism is clear: Nicky couldn’t find, fix or kill any of the broken things in his life because he never did the necessary work to become a whole person. He kept trying to create one “perfect” romantic partnership after another, but his idea of the perfect relationship was built on a house of cards, having relied on his parents’ utterly flawed marriage as a template. As a result, every one of his relationships was doomed from the start.
Rachel tosses her wedding ring from the truck’s window as The Waterboys’ lead singer Mike Scott belts out “People are scrambling like dogs for a share. It’s cruel, and it’s hard, but it’s nothing compared to what we do to each other.” Indeed.
