It’s been a bumpy start to the year for Jason Statham, who starred in one of the biggest financial disappointments of his career with Shelter. What made the film’s box office bombing even more shocking is that it came out of the gates with some of the best reviews of any Statham-led actioner in 10 years. The Stath will see redemption this August in a new action thriller, Mutiny, which hails from Plane director Jean François-Richet. The action thriller also stars Annabelle Wallis, famous for her role as Grace in Peaky Blinders. Fans won’t have to wait long once the ball drops in 2027 to see a new Statham action movie, as he’s been confirmed to reprise his role as Adam Clay in a sequel to The Beekeeper, which is coming to theaters on January 15, 2027.

One of Jason Statham’s most frequent collaborators over the years has been acclaimed action director Guy Ritchie. The duo first worked together all the way back in 1998 for the release of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, which was also Statham’s feature acting debut. After reuniting a few years later for Snatch, co-starring Brad Pitt, the duo worked together a few more times until their most recent release briefly brought things to a halt. The last Jason Statham and Guy Ritchie movie, Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre, came out in 2023, and despite the combined star power of Statham and other big names like Aubrey Plaza and Josh Hartnett, the film bombed at the box office. Three years later, Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre has found redemption on streaming as one of the top 10 most popular VOD titles on various platforms around the world.

What Is ‘Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre’ About?

An official synopsis of Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre, which also stars Hugh Grant and Cary Elwes, reads as follows:

“Elite spy Orson Fortune is reluctantly recruited by British intelligence to thwart the sale of a deadly weapons technology to the highest bidder. Forced to enlist the help of Hollywood’s biggest action star, Fortune and his crack team deploy charm, deception, and brute force across sun-drenched international locales in a slick, globe-trotting caper.”

Operation Fortune earned a poor 51% from critics but a solid 82% from audiences on the aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes. The film cost $50 million to make, which left it with a break-even point of around $100 million, but it grossed only $48 million at the global box office. The film has shades of both James Bond and The Italian Job, perfect for fans of sleek spy thrillers with a splash of the classic heist adventure.

Check out Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre on VOD platforms like Prime Video, and stay tuned to Collider for more streaming updates and coverage of Guy Ritchie and Jason Statham’s future projects.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Release Date

March 3, 2023

Runtime

Advertisement

113 minutes

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

In the last few years, Jason Statham has been primarily focused on starring in original action movies, but the famous movie star has plenty of experience with franchise work. One of his first big roles that immediately comes to mind is Deckard Shaw, who he’s been playing for years in the Fast & Furious franchise. Statham’s Deckard Shaw was such a hit with fans that he and Dwayne Johnson were recruited to lead the 2019 spin-off film, Hobbs & Shaw, which grossed over $700 million at the global box office. It’s expected that Statham will return and star as Deckard Shaw in the eleventh and final Fast & Furious movie coming to theaters in 2028, and while this has yet to be officially confirmed, it was alluded to in the 2023 blockbuster, Fast X, when he briefly returned.

Another massive franchise role for Statham has been that of Lee Christmas, who he has played in four Expendables movies over the course of nearly 15 years. Back in May, it was reported that a new Expendables movie was in the works, but Statham is not expected to star in the project, as it will focus on an all-female team, shifting the focus away from Statham and other stars like Sylvester Stallone. Following the announcement of the next Expendables movie, fans have been rushing to check out Statham’s final outing as Lee Christmas in droves, which has led Expend4bles back into the global VOD top 10 in a handful of countries around the world. The Expendables 4 is also widely viewed as Statham’s biggest financial misfire — the film grossed only $37 million at the box office against a $100 million budget.

What Is ‘The Expendables 4’ About?

An official synopsis for Expend4bles, which also stars Megan Fox and 50 Cent, reads as follows:

“When the world needs its last line of defense, it calls the Expendables. Barney Ross and Lee Christmas lead their elite crew of mercenaries on a mission to Libya to stop ruthless arms dealer Rahmat from seizing nuclear warheads for a shadowy terrorist known only as Ocelot. But with betrayal from within and a plot to ignite World War III, the old guard and a lethal new generation must unite to save the world — or die trying.”

Expendables 4 is one of the lowest-rated movies of Statham’s career, earning an abysmal 14% approval rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes. Audiences were kinder to the film, rating it a solid 69% on the Popcornmeter.

Check out The Expendables 4 on VOD platforms like Prime Video and stay tuned to Collider for more updates and coverage of Jason Statham’s future projects.

Advertisement

Release Date

Advertisement

September 15, 2023

Runtime

103 minutes

Advertisement

Writers

Max Adams, Kurt Wimmer, Spenser Cohen, Tad Daggerhart

Producers

Advertisement

Jason Statham, Jeffrey Greenstein, Jonathan Yunger, Kevin King Templeton, Les Weldon, Yariv Lerner

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

By Joshua Tyler
| Published 1 hour ago

There’s been a lot of talk recently about how the big sci-fi franchises are all in trouble. No one’s watching the old standbys anymore; everyone’s upset with them, and none of it makes any sense.

This is a disaster that’s been twenty-four years in the making, and you can trace its roots back to 2002, when Star Trek released Star Trek: Nemesis, a movie meant to be a big send-off for its most beloved cast and crew. A movie that was supposed to take an existing world into a new era of special effects and modern sensibilities. 

Instead, Star Trek: Nemesis ended the franchise and sent Hollywood into a tailspin of recycled failure. And we still haven’t recovered. Maybe sci-fi never will. 

This is why Star Trek: Nemesis failed.

The Worst Script In Star Trek

Star Trek: Nemesis ends with one of the best space battles in science fiction, and the second-best space battle in all of Star Trek, next to that unstoppable banger in Wrath of Khan. It’s a 20-minute, technically proficient masterclass and the only Star Trek space battle that actually takes the time to think about things like real tactics and technical details, such as keeping strong shields toward the enemy and rolling your ship to improve weapons targeting. 

If the rest of the movie were even half this good, then Nemesis would likely have celebrated and extended the Next Generation era of Star Trek, instead of being the final nail in its coffin. But the rest of the movie isn’t this good. It’s not even half this good. 

Star Trek: Nemesis begins with a ridiculous scene in which Captain Picard drives around in a dune buggy wearing safety googles and shooting at random aliens who appear out of nowhere. 

Along the way, Picard finds another Soong android, which they call B4. B4 is basically Data if he had Down syndrome. 

The whole sequence feels like a non-sequitor, and while they do tie it into the plot at the end, it’s shot as if it takes place in a different movie. That may be because it sort of is. 

Part of the story for this movie was dreamed up by actor Brent Spiner as a way to kill off his character. Brent’s ideas involving Data were developed separately from the main plot of the movie and then just sort of shoehorned in.

That main plot, by the way, is the worst thing about Star Trek: Nemesis, and as soon as someone had this as their idea for the movie, the entire project was probably doomed. Maybe a great writer could have saved it with the right kind of script, but John Logan is not a great writer. In fact, he’s a terrible one, and he makes this bad idea worse. 

I know, John Logan has supposedly done good work. He co-wrote movies like Gladiator and Skyfall. But given the garbage he typed out for this movie, I suspect his co-writers may have done most of the heavy lifting.

Logan’s terrible Star Trek: Nemesis script uses a cringe cloning plot in a shallow attempt to rip off Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The Romulans have cloned Jean-Luc Picard for bizarre hand-wave reasons, and then decided not to use that clone for other vague hand-wave reasons, and then, instead of killing that clone, dropped it in a mine for still more vague hand-wave reasons, where it grew up plotting revenge.

Why John Logan Replaced Romulans With Remans

That clone is named Shinzon, and now that he’s all grown up, he’s teamed up with the hideous-looking Reman slaves in the mines to take over the entire Romulan Empire. Why not just make the slaves Romulans instead of inventing this new species of randomoids who live with the Romulans? This was another terrible John Logan idea.

John Logan was tasked with writing a Romulan plot, but he thought Romulans looked boring and wanted to have some sort of obviously monstrous-looking characters. So he invented Remans and replaced the Romulans with his idiotic pet Gargoyles.

I say again: John Logan is not a good writer.

So Shinzon and the Remans take over the entire Romulan Star Empire, and they do it with the willing help of the entire Romulan military. This happens despite the fact that we’re told the Romulans and their military all hate Shinzon, hate Remans even more, and also it obviously means both they and their entire civilization will be totally wiped out by angry hordes of rampaging Reman slaves with absolutely no positive benefits of any kind to anyone involved.

Instead of dealing with these lingering Romulan issues, Shinzon decides he must wipe out all life on the planet Earth. Why? Vague hand-wave. Who knows?

Also, he decides that he must kill Captain Picard, even though Captain Picard has done nothing to him. Also, Shinzon will die unless he can get a living Captain Picard to give him a blood transfusion. 

Captain Picard’s Nap Gets Data Killed

This all culminates in a scene where there’s a one-minute countdown, and if Captain Picard doesn’t stop it, everyone on planet Earth will die. Picard, having defeated Shinzon, spends this minute in which he could be turning the weapon off in quiet contemplation, staring blankly off into space. With ten seconds to go, Data shows up, beams the inexplicably catatonic Picard to safety, and, because thanks to Picard, there’s no longer any time to do anything else, Data randomly shoots the super weapon with a phaser, blowing up both himself and the ship it’s on.

Remember when Spock died in Wrath of Khan? Remember that heart-wrenching funeral with a big crowd of people where Scotty plays the bagpipes, and Kirk starts sobbing and crying over the death of his friend? Don’t worry, the crew of the Enterprise E also holds a funeral to honor their longtime crewmate, friend, and the savior of Earth.

Well, six of them do anyway. They stand around awkwardly in Picard’s ready room for a couple of minutes. They drink a glass of wine, and Jean-Luc makes a vague statement about “absent friends” without mentioning Data’s name.

Riker does tell a very brief anecdote about the first time he met Data, but he doesn’t actually remember what happened, suggesting none of it is important to him. Then everyone gets on with things, and the movie ends.

Why Star Trek: Nemesis Failed

There are a lot of technical, timing, and marketing reasons you could list to explain why Star Trek: Nemesis failed. But the biggest one, the only one that really matters, is the movie’s script. It’s a piece of garbage. 

If you listen to what the cast has to say about the movie, they tend to blame the film’s director, Stuart Baird, for its failure. That’s ridiculous, because everything else about Nemesis is actually kind of great. The production is lavish and beautiful. The space sequences, in particular, are stunning. 

The hand-to-hand combat action bits aren’t at all terrible, especially given that they’re being executed by an elderly, totally out-of-shape cast. That cast does seem a little bored and confused, probably because they have to read lines off John Logan’s terrible script, but they’re all pros and game to do whatever is needed to make this adventure work. 

Everything about Star Trek: Nemesis mostly does work, too. Except for the script. You don’t have a movie without a script. 

Nemesis opened to $18.5 million in North America but collapsed quickly, finishing with only $43.3 million domestically and about $67 million worldwide, against a reported $60 million production budget. That made it the lowest-grossing Star Trek movie of the entire original theatrical era, trailing even the much-maligned Star Trek V. That’s right, it did worse than the one where God needed a starship for a joyride.

As you’d imagine with a script composed primarily of dumpster dive, critics were largely unimpressed. They saw Nemesis as the recycled flotsam that it was. 

Maybe fans would have been more forgiving, but then the movie killed Data and treated his death like someone had just unplugged an old toaster. They were pissed. Fans wanted the heads of everyone involved. And they definitely didn’t want more Star Trek done this way. 

So that was it for the golden age of Star Trek. Nemesis ended it right then and there. Paramount went into full reboot mode, and by 2009, that’s exactly what we got. A reboot. 

No Lessons Were Learned

Of course, if they’d actually listened to any of the criticism being leveled at Nemesis, a reboot is the exact opposite of what they should have done. The main problem everyone had with Nemesis is that it recycled Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. 

So Paramount responded to criticisms of recycled plots by rebooting the franchise and recycling everything Star Trek had ever done for their 2009 movie. Then they specifically recycled Wrath of Khan yet again for the reboot sequel Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Star Trek: Nemesis failed, no lessons of any kind were learned, and Star Trek as a whole was sent spinning off into an increasingly terrible oblivion from which the franchise never recovered. 

By TeeJay Small
| Published 28 seconds ago

Maybe I’m becoming jaded in my old age, but I’ve found it impossible to get excited about most theatrical releases these days. The last time I actually went to the theater was eight months ago when Predator: Badlands released, and before that, I hadn’t been to a theater in over a year. With Marvel offering diminishing returns post-Endgame and streaming getting better and better, it takes a lot for a trailer to get me out of my seat, and into the box office. That’s why it came as such a surprise to me when the trailer for The Social Reckoning released last week, and immediately solidified itself as a theater watch.

From Visionary To Villain

I recall watching The Social Network upon release all the way back in 2010. The combination of Aaron Sorkin’s quirky dialogue, David Fincher‘s impeccable directing, and one of the greatest original scores in cinema history made it an instant favorite. Though I still revisit that movie from time to time, I rolled my eyes when a legacy sequel titled The Social Reckoning was first announced.

Once the media blitz for the new film kicked off, every headline just made me more ambivalent to the production. Jesse Eisenberg won’t be returning for the sequel, so why should I? David Fincher isn’t attached to direct, so why even bother? When the trailer began circulating social media, I considered skipping it entirely. Still, it produced enough buzz that I figured I’d give it a spin, just so I could participate in the cultural moment.

Almost immediately I recognized the value in this film. Sorkin’s feelings on the central character, real-life Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, seem to have changed in lockstep with the rest of the world. Back in 2010, we all saw the scrappy Harvard dropout as a brilliant, rough-around-the-edges geek who revolutionized the way that friends stay in touch. Fast forward nearly two decades, and Facebook has done insurmountable damage to the world, from harming teenagers’ mental health, to aiding in the worsening partisanship of politics, and even serving as a powder keg in an actual genocide in Myanmar.

To that end, The Social Reckoning looks like it’s bridging the gap between the Zuckerberg we knew and loved in Eisenberg’s portrayal, to the megalomaniac billionaire who testified before congress in 2024. Succession‘s Jeremy Strong has now taken on the mantle, with a pitch-perfect impression of the Meta CEO, played against a room full of PR crisis experts. Boston’s own Bill Burr seems to have a prominent role, as the only PR guy willing to push back against Zuckerberg’s stilted, awkward delivery. Meanwhile, The Bear‘s Jeremy Allen White investigates the 2021 Facebook memo leak which exposed a wide array of corruption at the site.

Obviously, it’s too soon to tell if The Social Reckoning will stand up alongside its predecessor as a five star film. But, the trailer does a great job of making the new movie look highly promising. When it releases in theaters on October 9, I’ll definitely be in the crowd with my phone silenced and my Facebook page suspended.

Love Island USA‘s Kenzie Annis enjoyed making Dylan Wrona “horny” after he massaged her on a date.

During the Friday, June 26, episode of the hit Peacock show, Dylan invited Kenzie on a date that involved him massaging her. Kenzie was thrilled at the attention she received from the newcomer.

“He was thinking above and beyond,” she gushed. “I haven’t had a guy do that for me in here and I think he got a little horny.”

The Love Island franchise began in the U.K. in 2002 before expanding worldwide with various spinoffs, including Love Island USA. Each season, a new group of singles live in isolation in the show’s luxury villa, where they must stay coupled up in order to stand a chance at receiving the $100,000 prize.

The contestants — referred to as Islanders — are under constant video surveillance during filming, leading to plenty of raunchy moments ending up on screen.

Season 8 took the heat to a new level with multiple couples going all the way while sharing a bedroom in the villa. The introduction of Casa Amor only upped the potential for sexy scenes.

Thursday’s episode also featured an update on bombshell Alannah Keyser, who was removed from the show after facing backlash for a resurfaced video that allegedly showed her using a racial slur.

The video and other posts were not shared publicly until after Alannah’s appearance on the show and thus were not accessible during the vetting process.

Related: ‘Love Island USA‘ Season 8 Couples: Who Is Still Together? Who Broke Up?

Love Island USA is all about coupling up — so which Islanders are currently together and which have already called it quits in the villa? Peacock’s popular dating show returned in June 2026 with contestants Aniya Harvey, Beatriz Hatz, Bryce Alakai Dettloff, KC Chandler, Mackenzie “Kenzie” Annis, Melanie Moreno, Sincere Rhea, Sean Reifel, Trinity Tatum […]

Earlier this season, another contestant, Vasana Montgomery, was cut from the show after resurfaced social media posts showed her using a slur. Similar issues arose during season 7 last year, with Yulissa Escobar leaving days into the experience after clips of her using racial slurs on a podcast circulated online.

Cierra Ortega also faced backlash for using a slur in her own resurfaced social media post. She was pulled from the villa and later issued an apology for her past actions.

Thank You!

You have successfully subscribed.

New episodes of Love Island USA are released six days a week — except for Wednesdays — on Peacock.

Join Us Weekly and Bracketology.tv in our first-ever Love Island USA fantasy league! This is your chance to predict who you think will win Season 8 and rank the Islanders weekly based on how confident you are that they will survive the next elimination. You will be playing against our editors, get access to exclusive content and have the chance to win fun prizes. Sign up for free today!

By Chris Snellgrove
| Published 15 seconds ago

For a long time, fans of comic book movies dreaded one thing: the origin story. Whenever we got a new movie featuring characters like Batman and Spider-Man, we had to spend way too long watching an origin for a character we are very familiar with. Like, how many times can we watch Peter Parker’s Uncle or Bruce Wayne’s parents get brutally murdered before we just mentally tune everything out? Eventually, superhero directors came to the same conclusion. That’s why the MCU ditched showing the origin story for Spider-Man and, more recently, the DCU ditched showing the origin story for Superman.

This is a philosophy that has mostly been embraced by Supergirl, the latest superhero film to fly into theaters. I say “mostly” because we do get some flashbacks that explain the title character’s backstory in dribs and drabs, but they are interspersed throughout the movie. Unfortunately, since audiences are far less familiar with this character, Supergirl is one film that really would benefit from more of an upfront origin story. Additionally, making her origin story front and center would help give this new tights-and-flights film the proper emotional arc that it so desperately needs.

Dazed And Confusing

Fair warning: this article is going to touch on some mild spoilers for Supergirl that mostly pertain to the character’s origin. With that out of the way, let’s begin! The movie begins with our heroine going on a multi-day, multi-planet bender to celebrate her 23rd birthday. While she loves to party, she’s not really a people person: she’s terse with everyone she encounters, including the future kid sidekick whose circumstances set the whole plot in motion. Heck, she’s even snippy towards Superman, the sugary sweet superhero who wants nothing more than for his cousin to come home. Considering she’s young, beautiful, and has godlike powers, you might start asking, “What’s your problem, lady?”

The answer, of course, is trauma! Supergirl didn’t ditch Krypton right before it exploded as Superman did. Rather, her father activated a force shield meant to protect his city and its people. At first, it worked: Krypton exploded, but Argo City floated through space safe and secure, an island among the stars. However, its residents discovered years later that their escape had unearthed Krpytonite that had poisoned the soil. This killed many, including Supergirl’s mother, and she was sent to Earth to save her from a similarly slow and debilitating death.

The Key To A More Sympathetic Superhero

Pretty gloomy, huh? At first glance, you can imagine why DC didn’t want this at the beginning of a film they marketed as the lighthearted love child of Guardians of the Galaxy and Mad Max. Why do I think Supergirl should have started with this, or at least moved it far closer to the start of the film? For one thing, it instantly explains our heroine’s snarky ennui. A good chunk of the early movie is spent showing Supergirl as someone who’d rather drink and party than help anyone, even a teen whose family just got murdered. Honestly, it makes her seem more than a bit selfish.

With the origin moved up front, though, Supergirl would be instantly more sympathetic. We’d understand that she had to say goodbye to an entire world in a way that Superman never did, and, as a result, she is afraid to make meaningful connections with others. Seeing the Krypton scenes in later flashbacks provides belated context, but by then, it’s too little and too late. Not only have audiences largely made their minds up about the character by then, but putting those flashbacks later in the film also caused pacing problems that practically ground Supergirl to a halt when the film should have been moving, well, faster than a speeding bullet.

Obviously, simply moving the origin story to the beginning of the film would not have been enough to keep Supergirl from being relatively mediocre. But it would have made for a better introduction to the title character, one that makes her sympathetic even as it clarifies her character arc. Plus, while your mileage may vary, I thought Krypton was the coolest alien planet in the film; if we couldn’t see more of it, it would be good to at least see it sooner. At this rate, though, fans will have to do what they once did with the DCEU: wait for a fan editor to splice together something truly great. 

Severance has inspired plenty of recommendations, from workplace satires to twisty psychological thrillers, but one of its closest thematic cousins isn’t another TV series at all. It’s Klara and the Sun, Kazuo Ishiguro’s 2021 novel, a deceptively quiet work of science fiction that asks many of the same unsettling questions about identity, personhood, and what remains of us when our lives are reduced to a single purpose.

On the surface, the two stories couldn’t look more different. Severance confines office employees within a corporate dystopia that bifurcates their memories between work and home. Klara and the Sun describes Klara, an artificial companion who was bought to help combat the social isolation associated with being a sick child. Put simply, one unfolds like a mystery box, the other moves with the patience of a literary drama; look closer, though, and they’re exploring the same fear of what happens when a person — or something that looks like one — is valued only for what it can do.

‘Klara and the Sun’ Explores Identity From the Opposite Direction

Image via Apple TV+

Like Severance, Klara and the Sun explores divided identities, and both arrive at this theme from different angles. Dan Erickson’s series asks what happens when a single person is split into two selves. Lumon’s employees become “innies” and “outies,” each living an incomplete life with no access to the other’s memories. The show turns memory into the foundation of identity; without it, even the same body can house two different people.

Ishiguro poses a parallel question through Klara. She’s designed to observe people so closely that she can imitate them with uncanny precision. At one point, she’s even considered a possible continuation of Josie, a sick child, should the girl die, prompting the novel to ask whether perfect imitation is the same as becoming someone. The answer, much like Severance’s, is no. Both stories reject the comforting idea that a person can be reduced to information. Memory, behavior, and personality matter, but they aren’t enough on their own. There’s always something left over that can’t be copied, programmed, or divided into neat categories.

‘Severance’ and ‘Klara and the Sun’ Treat People Like Products

Image via Apple TV

The most unsettling connection between Severance and Klara and the Sun is utility. At Lumon Industries, employees exist to perform “mysterious and important” work while the company strips away everything that makes them whole. Their value comes from productivity, not individuality, and they become interchangeable pieces in a machine whose purpose they’re never allowed to understand.

Klara has her own distinct form of existence; nonetheless, this new existence closely resembles what Artificial Friends experience in another way; i.e., their owners buy them, use them, and then dispose of them when their assigned duties have been performed. Klara does not rebel against these realities, nor is she concerned with revolting against or showing superiority over humans. Rather, Klara’s primary existence revolves around her desire to assist Josie, who has a limited lifespan, even if it causes long-term harm to herself.

Most science fiction about artificial intelligence imagines machines desperate to become human, but Ishiguro flips that expectation, as Klara doesn’t crave freedom or power. She just wants to do the job she was created to do as well as she possibly can, and ironically, it’s the human characters who keep trying to erase the line between person and machine.

Both stories ultimately arrive at the same philosophical question: If technology can perfectly reproduce our behavior, what, then, makes us unique? Severance frames that question through memory, where every elevator ride creates a new version of the same person, forcing viewers to decide whether the innie and outie are equally real.

Klara and the Sun reaches a similar conclusion through observation, on the other hand. Klara can learn speech patterns, habits, and expressions with extraordinary accuracy, but she gradually realizes that people aren’t defined solely by what they do but are also shaped by the relationships around them — one of Ishiguro’s most powerful ideas, that a person’s identity doesn’t exist in isolation. It lives in the memories, love, and connections they share with others. Those things can’t simply be transferred into another body, no matter how advanced the technology becomes. It’s an idea that echoes throughout Severance, where the innies constantly fight for recognition as complete individuals rather than disposable extensions of their outies. Both works suggest that personhood isn’t something institutions get to define.

They’re Both Quiet Warnings About the Future

Via Apple TV+

Advertisement

Neither Severance nor Klara and the Sun relies on robot uprisings or apocalyptic spectacles. Instead, they imagine futures that feel only a few steps removed from our own. In Severance, workers willingly surrender parts of themselves in exchange for professional success, and in Klara and the Sun, artificial companions become the solution to childhood loneliness while genetic enhancement reshapes social class behind the scenes. Neither world arrives through catastrophe, but emerges through small compromises that gradually become the norm. Both stories are much more focused on how humans will gradually reshape themselves due to advances in technology than on the possibility that technology would eventually surpass humans.

If Severance captured your imagination with themes of identity, consciousness, and the difference between being alive and simply being a machine or an object, then Klara and the Sun should be one of your must-reads. While Klara and the Sun explores these same themes, it does so in a different way — from bright artificial light in an office building to wide-open sky and private moments between two people. Long story short, Klara whispers where Severance screams.

Bailey Zimmerman may have faced one of the most difficult chapters of his career behind the scenes, but fans watching the 2026 CMA Fest television special saw the country singer at the top of his game. Zimmerman’s performance, which was filmed earlier this month during CMA Fest in Nashville, aired Thursday night as part of ABC’s three-hour primetime concert special, just days after prosecutors dropped the criminal charges stemming from his highly publicized New Mexico hotel incident.

Although the CMA Fest television special aired on June 25, Zimmerman’s performance was recorded nearly three weeks earlier during the annual festival, which ran from June 4 through June 7 at Nissan Stadium in Nashville.

During his set, Zimmerman energized the crowd with a performance of his hit “Chevy Silverado” before welcoming Christian music star Brandon Lake to the stage for a live rendition of their collaboration, “Just Believe.”

Advertisement

The performance was described as one of the festival’s standout moments, showcasing the singer just days before his legal troubles became national news.

Criminal Charges Were Dropped After Restitution Was Paid

Earlier this week, prosecutors officially dismissed the criminal case against Zimmerman after he fully reimbursed Sandia Resort & Casino for the damage authorities alleged he caused during a May incident.

The singer had originally faced one felony count of criminal damage to property over $1,000 and one misdemeanor count of falsely obtaining services.

According to the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office, the charges were dropped after Zimmerman paid full restitution to the resort.

Authorities Alleged Zimmerman Was Intoxicated Before The Incident

According to the arrest affidavit, the incident began during soundcheck before Zimmerman ever returned to his hotel room. Authorities alleged the country singer appeared intoxicated while preparing for his scheduled concert at Sandia Resort & Casino. Investigators claimed Zimmerman stumbled onto the stage before grabbing a guitar and striking it against the ground.

The affidavit further alleges he threw a microphone, repeatedly walked off stage, kicked drum cymbals after returning, shoved one of his guitarists, and spat toward a Sandia security officer after taking a drink of water. Resort staff later determined Zimmerman and members of his team needed to leave the property because of his behavior, according to investigators.

Advertisement

Hotel Room Was Allegedly Left With Thousands In Damage

Following the canceled concert, investigators alleged Zimmerman returned to his hotel room, where extensive damage was later discovered. According to court documents, hotel staff estimated approximately $16,000 in property damage, including broken furniture, damaged electronics, holes in the walls, stained carpeting, and other destruction throughout the room.

Authorities also alleged Zimmerman left more than $400 in alcohol charges unpaid. Those allegations ultimately led prosecutors to file both felony and misdemeanor criminal charges before the case was later resolved.

Zimmerman Issued A Public Apology

After news of the incident became public, Zimmerman released a lengthy statement taking responsibility for his actions.

“I want to address the events surrounding my canceled show in New Mexico in May and the reports that have followed,” he said. “First things first, I want to apologize to the Pueblo of Sandia and to everyone at Sandia Resort & Casino. I never meant for any of this to come across as disrespectful. I am deeply sorry for my actions that transpired.”

The singer continued, “I respect your community and the hospitality, and appreciate the opportunity that was given to me to perform on Native Land. I take full accountability for everything that happened, and I am sorry to anyone who feels hurt or disrespected.”

Zimmerman also apologized directly to fans who had purchased tickets to the canceled performance. “To my fans who bought tickets and showed up expecting a performance, I am so sorry, you deserved better from me,” he said. “I understand that being a musician comes with big responsibilities, both on and off stage, and I know that I fell short that day. I am reflecting on the disappointment and concern that I caused.”

Advertisement

Insider Claims Singer Was Privately Struggling

In the days following the incident, an insider claimed Zimmerman’s outburst came during a particularly difficult period in his personal life.

According to the source, the country star had recently gone through a breakup while also dealing with the pressures of his rapid rise to fame. “He didn’t eat and had a ton of tequila and was going through heartbreak,” the insider claimed. Although Zimmerman is no longer in a relationship, the source alleged the breakup left him emotionally overwhelmed.

The insider also described the incident as the culmination of emotional exhaustion rather than an ongoing substance abuse issue.

For all you “ride or die” Yellowstone fans out there, Paramount+ has dropped the best news you could ask for. After that record-breaking premiere and a handful of Texas-sized episodes, Dutton Ranch has officially been renewed for a second season. That’s right, folks: Beth Dutton (Kelly Reilly) and Rip Wheeler (Cole Hauser) are set to return for more post-Taylor Sheridan adventures on the streaming platform, and with the news of a renewal ahead of the Season 1 finale, we can’t wait to see how this first batch of episodes ends. Sorry, Marshals, but there’s a reason that the Rip and Beth show is Yellowstone‘s true successor.

‘Dutton Ranch’ Is Returning for Season 2 on Paramount+

In many respects, Dutton Ranch has defied the neo-Western odds. Spin-offs and sequels often fall short on the premise of the original flagship title they spun off from, but that hasn’t been the case here. Even without Taylor Sheridan in the writers’ room (which, frankly, has been refreshing), the Chad Feehan-created series has gone to great lengths to maintain the same level of visual and narrative quality, while offering something more character-specific and appealing for its leading protagonists. Despite Feehan’s exit ahead of the Season 1 premiere, the series has caught on like wildfire (too soon?), with many quite impressed at how the Yellowstone Universe has managed to carve a path of its own apart from John Dutton (Kevin Costner) and the original horse opera. If that can continue into Season 2, then fans will be in for a real Lone Star-style treat.

Part of the reason Dutton Ranch works so dang well is that it isn’t afraid to be its own thing, nor is it unwilling to rework its leading characters to better carry the story. The show immediately removes Rip, Beth, and Carter (Finn Little) from the mountainscapes of Montana and sends them down south to the U.S.-Mexico border, a place rife with narrative opportunity. In all of that, the series has managed to give each of its three returning Yellowstone leads — and all the fresh Rio Paloma newcomers — discernible character arcs and engaging material to chew on. Beth, for instance, is more of a well-rounded and interesting character now than she ever was back when Sheridan was at the helm, and Carter has really grown into his own as well. Rip is something of an anomaly in that he’s basically the same guy he was on Yellowstone, but that’s kind of always worked for him.

Supporting players like Annette Bening (who, ironically, was a Kevin Costner love interest back in the criminally underrated Open Range), Ed Harris, Natalie Alyn Lind, J. R. Villarreal, and Juan Pablo Raba all play their parts with the same high level of care you’d expect from anyone in 1883, 1923, or any of Sheridan’s other Paramount dramas. Even Jai Courtney is pretty exceptional as the reckless, menacing, and all-around deplorable Rob-Will Jackson. Of course, Bening and Harris are the obvious breakout Dutton Ranch stars here, and it’s always a pleasure to watch them play alongside Hauser and Keilly. In short, those worried that Dutton Ranch couldn’t live up to its name after Yellowstone have been sorely mistaken.

‘Dutton Ranch’ Is ‘Yellowstone’s Best and Most Obvious Successor

With Taylor Sheridan’s 1944 prequel still in development and Marshals already renewed for a second season on CBS, it seems like the Yellowstone universe is as prevalent now as it was when Costner was the face of the franchise. That said, only one series can reign as the “cattle king” over the rest, and if we had to pick which of the various modern Dutton dramas is the best of the bunch, Dutton Ranch would be the top contender. Not only does it allow Beth and Rip to continue their story beyond the shadow of the Yellowstone itself (something Marshals hasn’t quite figured out yet), but it has remained consistent in its cinematic quality. It looks and feels just as dynamic as Yellowstone did, something no network television-based spin-off (no matter its potential) could pull off.

This isn’t to say there isn’t merit to Kayce Dutton’s (Luke Grimes) story. The procedural format, though severely limiting to his story, generally works for that character, but for Beth and Rip, it’s clear that they need more time to iron out their issues on the streaming screen. Dutton Ranch is a worthy Yellowstone heir, and though that “Y” is no longer the leading symbol that Beth and Rip fall under, it will always stick with them. Considering how well both Dutton Ranch and Marshals are already doing on streaming, it’s clear the franchise is stronger than it’s ever been.