Individually, Jason Statham and Guy Ritchie have delivered some of the most entertaining action films ever, but when they join forces, their combined impact is undeniable. They first collaborated on the ’90s crime thriller Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, which also stars Jason Flemyng and Dexter Fletcher. Not only did this mark their first project together, but it was also Statham’s feature film debut, and it quickly showed he had star potential. Just two years later, they teamed up again for another iconic crime film, Snatch, which also includes Brad Pitt. More recently, their collaborations on Wrath of Man and Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre have continued to earn praise from fans, even if they didn’t become major box office hits.

Ritchie and Statham are working on a new movie together, but before it arrives in theaters (likely next year), Ritchie still has some solo projects away from Statham to get through. Yet another Ritchie success story came earlier this year with the release of Young Sherlock, the hit series showcasing the origins of the famous British detective. The series is unconnected to Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes movies starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. Prime Video dropped all episodes of Young Sherlock as a binge last month on March 4, and although it took some time, the studio decided to renew the show for Season 2 just last week. It’s still unclear at this time when Young Sherlock Season 2 is going to be released, but the show is surging on streaming right now following the news of its renewal, pushing it back into the Prime Video global top 10.

What Is ‘Young Sherlock’ About?

The official synopsis for Young Sherlock, which was written and created for TV by Guy Ritchie, Peter Harness, and Matthew Parkhill, reads as follows: “A disgraced, young Sherlock Holmes finds himself wrapped up in a murder case that threatens his liberty. His first case unravels a globe-trotting conspiracy, culminating in an explosive showdown that changes his life forever.” The ensemble cast for Young Sherlock consists of Hero Fiennes Tiffin as Sherlock Holmes, Dónal Finn as Moriarty, Natascha McElhone as Cordelia Holmes, Zine Tseng as Xiao Wei, Max Irons as Mycroft Holmes, and Holly Cattle as Edie.

Check out the first season of Young Sherlock on Prime Video and stay tuned to Collider for more updates and coverage of Season 2.

Advertisement

Release Date

March 4, 2026

Advertisement

Network

Prime Video

Showrunner

Advertisement

Matthew Parkhill

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Two parents in Florida have been arrested after their 1-month-old son died with bruises, scratches and lacerations that covered his body.

Ashton Kurant and Gabriella Daniels have been charged with aggravated child abuse causing great bodily harm and neglect of a child causing great bodily harm.

Daniels, 22, called police after she found the boy unresponsive shortly before noon on Thursday, April 16, at the couple’s apartment, according to a probable cause arrest affidavit viewed by Law & Crime. Paramedics quickly reported to the scene, where they found the boy. He was pronounced dead soon after around 12:30 p.m.

While at the home, authorities noted the boy had multiple bruises along his hairline, as well as several scratches and lacerations that covered his body.

Related: Parents Arrested After 5-Month-Old Dies in Suspected Child Abuse Case

A mother and father in Union, South Carolina, have been arrested after their 5-month-old son died, with authorities allegedly believing that they neglected and abused the infant leading up to his passing. Officers with the Union Public Safety Department responded to Union Medical Center on August 8, 2025, after they received a report about potential […]

Both parents were given their Miranda warnings before they told officers that they didn’t know how the boy suffered the injuries. Officers said that the couple gave “inconsistent statements” regarding what times they fed and changed the boy, while Kurant, 21, also allegedly admitted to using marijuana while he took care of his son.

Amid the investigation, police learned that the Department of Children and Families was “involved” with the family and they saw the child six days before his death on April 10. The affidavit stated that the boy did not have any injuries at the time of the visit. However, it’s not currently clear why the department was visiting the couple’s home in the first place.

Police are still working to determine the cause and manner of the boy’s death, which will be revealed once the autopsy is completed.

Once the autopsy results come back, Kurant and Daniels could potentially face additional charges based on the boy’s cause and manner of death.

While the affidavit stated that the boy was injured, the paperwork did not detail how authorities believe the victim suffered the injuries.

Related: Florida Mother Arrested After Allegedly Suffocating 4-Year-Old Son to Death

A mother in St. Petersburg, Florida, has been arrested after she was accused of suffocating her 4-year-old son to death. Officers with the St. Petersburg Police Department were called to a property off Tanglewood Drive Northeast around 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 27. Upon their arrival, they found that 4-year-old Finley Cullom had died and […]

The affidavit stated that the infant was not enrolled in daycare and has always been under the supervision of his parents.

Thank You!

You have successfully subscribed.

Both Kurant and Daniels are currently in custody at the Pinellas County Jail on a $750,000 bond. A future court date regarding the charges has not yet been publicly revealed.

It is not currently clear if Kurant and Daniels have entered pleas or retained legal counsel following their arrests. The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office did not immediately respond to Us Weekly’s request for comment regarding the case.

The investigation into the case remains ongoing.

Jennie Garth hasn’t seen Amanda Bynes since their What I Like About You days.

“I haven’t [spoken to her] in a long time,” Garth, 54, said in Us Weekly’s exclusive clip from this week episode of Amanda Hirsch‘s “Not Skinny But Not Fat” podcast. “I would love nothing more than to reconnect with her.”

She added, “I would love it.”

Garth played Bynes’ “uptight” sister on What I Like About You for four seasons from 2002 to 2006.

“They brought me in to do a chemistry meeting with Amanda Bynes,” Garth recalled. “That show, What I Like About You, was so fun.”

Bynes, now 40, played teenager Holly in the series, who was being cared for by her older sister, Val, played by Garth.

Garth has been reflecting on her career while promoting her book, I Choose Me, which was published earlier this month. During a recent appearance on Dax Shepard’s “Armchair Expert” podcast, Garth recalled working alongside disgraced television producer Dan Schneider on What I Like About You.

“I got called in by Will Calhoun, who was one of the head executives of Friends, and he was doing a new show with Amanda Bynes,” Garth recalled during the April 15 podcast episode. “[Schneider] was the other producer. He was kind of the Amanda side of it because it was starring myself and Amanda Bynes.”

Advertisement

Related: ‘What I Like About You’ Cast: Where Are They Now?

Amanda Bynes and Jennie Garth reminded fans of all the reasons they love the actresses during their run on What I Like About You. The duo starred as sisters Holly and Val Tyler, respectively, on the WB sitcom from 2002 to 2006. For four seasons, they cracked up viewers alongside their costars Nick Zano (Vince), Leslie Grossman […]

Schneider, now 60, worked closely with Bynes during her Nickelodeon days. Calhoun, 61, and Schneider cocreated What I Like About You.

Shepard, 51, wondered whether Garth had gotten “bad vibes” when meeting Schneider, who has previously been accused of fostering a toxic workplace and acting inappropriately with child actors. (Schneider apologized for his past actions after the 2024 release of the Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV docuseries. Bynes has never made accusations against Schneider.)

“Yeah, I was, to the point where I said to Will, like, ‘I would rather just communicate solely with you. I trust you,’” Garth recalled. “‘I think that you have my best interests in mind and I don’t feel that way with your partner. So I’d rather just be with you.’ And he was like, ‘No problem.’”

Thank You!

You have successfully subscribed.

Shepard’s cohost, Monica Padman, wondered whether Garth had witnessed Bynes being “destroyed” by Schneider on set.

“Not specifically him,” Garth said. “There were a lot of problems in the ecosystem of her.”

The full episode of “Not Skinny But Not Fat” with Jennie Garth drops Tuesday, April 21, on all podcast platforms.

Sister Wives star Tony Padron had a rough start when he first came home with Mykelti Brown to meet her parents, Kody Brown and Christine Brown. He didn’t make a good impression on his pending in-laws or for some of the fans as well.

It was all caught on camera for the TLC series. But something happened along the way to depict Tony Padron in a different light both on and off the Sister Wives screen.

Sister Wives: Did Tony Padron Insult Christine Brown’s Cooking?

Tony Padron made a remark when discussing wedding plans with Kody and Christine that many Sister Wives fans remember today. Tony wanted 10 tacos available for each of the 400 wedding guests they planned on inviting. And Mykelti went along with this.

He then insisted on “street tacos” and not the kind that Christine makes. Yep, and he said this outloud on the show. The Sister Wives fans know how much Christine prides herself on her cooking, so at some level this seemed to bother the mother of the bride.

Fans found this insulting to Christine, which put Tony in a less favorable light with many viewers. Still, fans got a kick out of watching Kody squirm as the dollar signs grew for Mykelti and Tony’s wedding venue.

Bad Money Vibes for Kody Brown?

The prospective Sister Wives son-in-law was adamant that 10 street tacos be available for each guest. So, if you do the math, that is 4,000 tacos. At the time this aired, fans jumped on social media to comment on how Tony seems to have no problem spending Kody’s money. After all, his future father-in-law was footing the bill for the wedding.

During the wedding planning, Kody looked worn down, as this marriage event came with a high price tag. Since Tony seemed to know how to push Kody’s buttons, fans requested seeing more of him on screen.

But once the wedding was over, Tony showed up now and then on the series. Then fans started to see something different in Mykelti’s new groom. They also saw a change in the couple through their social media posts.

Sister Wives: Will the Real Tony Please Stand Up…

The Sister Wives cameras first showed the viewers a Tony Padron who looked like he was about to ride on the coattails of this famous family. The show depicted him as a guy with an expectation of getting what he wanted for his wedding, regardless of the cost to Mykelti’s family.

This played out with Kody worrying about the cost of the wedding after Tony shared his plans of such a large affair. But things aren’t always what they look like on a reality TV show.

Then lo and behold, the curtains open to the Tony Padron we see today. Through his actions we learned something new. Mykelti’s husband is a highly successful chess player and one terrific family man who adores Mykelti and their children.

Introduction Scenes Caused a Buzz

Tony’s less-than-stellar introduction to Sister Wives certainly caused a buzz. But Mykelti marrying a chess wiz and all-around nice guy would not have gathered the drama that Tony’s wedding planning did. So, like a lot of other stuff seen on this show, fans believe he was introduced this way to spark the viewer’s interest, which it did.

Jump to Sister Wives today, and Tony has finally emerged as a likeable guy. Sure, he seems to lack that filter that stops him from blurting out what he is thinking before weighing the consequences first.

Christine described her son-in-law this way during one of the recent seasons. Talking about a lack of a filter, Kody Brown tends to have the same missing filter as well. So the family is likely used to this.

Sister Wives: Few Rocks Left Unturned

Today, many fans believe Tony brings out the best in Mykelti, and she does the same for him. Fans see them focus on being great parents. And from all their posts, it seems that they spend a lot of time with their kids.

They have a huge social media following, with fans flocking to hear what this couple has to say about the Brown family.

And as the video above suggests, Mykelti and Tony are not shy when it comes to sharing tidbits about Kody and the Brown family’s polygamous lifestyle of yesteryear. They leave very few rocks unturned when it comes to Kody.

This makes their posts very much sought after by the Sister Wives fans today. But no matter what topic these two share with their fans, there’s no doubt about it, they are living a life very much the opposite of Mykelti’s childhood.

Head back to Soap Dirt for the latest buzz on Sister Wives.

Federal investigators are putting up a $25,000 reward for information that eventually leads to the arrest of a Texas man who’s an alleged member of “Greggy’s Cult,” an online child exploitation enterprise that used social media and gaming platforms to exploit kids between 2019 and 2021.

Austin Jan Sy Yatco is wanted for conspiracy to produce, receive, and distribute child pornography, according to the FBI.

Federal investigators have alleged members of the “Greggy’s Cult” group, like Yatco, convinced minors they met online into filming themselves in a sexual manner, and later shared the material with the entire network.

“Greggy’s Cult” had existed long before a similar extremist online group known as “764,” the FBI noted.

764 is an infamous online sextortion network of pedophiles known for engaging in the coordinated grooming and coercive exploitation of vulnerable children, according to the FBI.

Related: Feds Arrest 2 Men Connected to Violent Extremist 764 Sextortion Ring

Federal authorities last week arrested two young men they claim have ties to an infamous online sextortion network of pedophiles that engages in the coordinated grooming and coercive exploitation of vulnerable children. The Department of Justice identified the men as Matthew Edward Pysher and Bryant Najera Gonzalez. Both men were arrested in Los Angeles, though […]

Advertisement

“These networks are known to target vulnerable children globally, often extorting them into self-harm, animal cruelty, and in some instances, suicide attempts,” reads an FBI statement.

A federal arrest warrant has been active for Yatco, 26, since January 23, officials said.

Yatco, according to the FBI, has longstanding ties to the Plano, Texas, area, and lived there for a time before fleeing the United States. He also has ties in the Philippines, where authorities suspect he’s currently hiding out.

“The FBI continues to prioritize the investigation of predators that threaten the safety of our children,” said R. Joseph Rothrock, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Dallas Field Office. “We are committed to apprehending Austin Yatco, bringing justice to his victims, and preventing future abuse.”

While the investigation is being led by the FBI’s Dallas Field Office, Yatco will be prosecuted in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.

Thank You!

You have successfully subscribed.

Advertisement

Related: Woman Arrested on Child Trafficking, Sexual Assault Charges at Nightclub

A woman in Texas has been arrested on child trafficking and sexual assault charges, and she was taken into custody after police tracked down her location at a nightclub through her social media posts. Officers with the Laredo Police Department arrested Elvira Yakelin Martinez on March 22 at the nightclub after authorities received information about […]

The FBI has asked that anyone who may have information about Yatco’s whereabouts contact the Dallas Field Office at (972) 559-5000 or call 1-800-CALL-FBI. Tips may also be submitted online at tips.fbi.gov or at any U.S. Embassy or Consulate. All tips can remain anonymous.

Parents, teachers, and guardians interested in learning more about protecting children from exploitation can find useful tools and information at Know2Protect.

If you know of a young person who is being exploited or are the victim of a crime, you are urged to report it to your local FBI field office by calling 1-800-CALL-FBI. Tips can also be left at tips.fbi.gov.

By Chris Snellgrove
| Published 53 seconds ago

Star Trek is a long-running franchise filled with tropes, some of them more annoying than others. For many fans, the dumbest trope that keeps popping up is when there’s only one ship that can save Earth from one catastrophe or another. It always begs the question: why isn’t the seat of the United Federation of Planets better protected? It certainly feels like such an important planet would have its own fleet for protection rather than relying on a long-range vessel like the Enterprise to warp in and save the day.

However, it seems that Star Trek’s scariest episode might have secretly answered fans’ oldest complaint about the franchise. Over on Reddit, user u/Wallname_Liability presented a compelling theory: that in the Star Trek: The Next Generation two-parter “The Best of Both Worlds,” the collection of Starfleet vessels lost fighting the Borg at Wolf 359 was the home fleet. This theory would help explain that Earth was typically better-defended than we might imagine and why there were fewer ships to protect the planet in later movies and shows.

My Borg Friend’s Back (And There’s Gonna Be Trouble)

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, most of the adventures take place in deep space because the intrepid crew has an ongoing mission to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and (come on, you know you’re already saying it out loud) boldly go where no one has gone before. But in “The Best of Both Worlds,” a Borg Cube starts heading directly for Earth. The Enterprise crew tries to develop a weapon that can defeat this implacable foe, one who seems nearly unstoppable after they assimilate Captain Picard. Meanwhile, a fleet of Starfleet ships assembles at Wolf 359 for one last stand against the Borg.

Unfortunately, that entire fleet is wiped out. The Borg makes it to Earth, but the Enterprise manages to stop these bionic baddies after rescuing Captain Picard. Data exploits Picard’s connection to the Collective and puts the cube to “sleep,” and it explodes soon after that. Picard and his crew get a mostly happy ending, but the same can’t be said for the crew of the ships that fought at Wolf 359. All vessels were lost, and only a handful of people survived, including Benjamin Sisko and Liam Shaw. 

Resistance Was Futile

According to this Redditor’s theory, the fleet that assembled at Wolf 359 was the home fleet assigned to (among other things) protect Earth. Some of the ships were likely already at Earth (possibly undergoing repairs or retrofits), and others might have been located near some of humanity’s older colonies. But everyone would have had to have been close enough to Earth to quickly warp to Wolf 359, a real star system that is only eight light-years from humanity’s home planet.

Why is the idea that this was the home fleet so important? In various Star Trek episodes and films, there has often only been one ship (usually the Enterprise) close enough to save Earth. In Star Trek: Generations, for example, the Enterprise-B is on a shakedown cruise, but it’s the only ship close enough to save the El-Aurian refugees from the threat of the Nexus. In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, only the Enterprise can intercept V’ger. In Nemesis, the Enterprise is the only Starfleet ship capable of preventing Shinzon from killing everyone on Earth, and so on.

The Best Of Trope Worlds

This trope can get frustrating when you start comparing Starfleet to, say, the United States Navy. How insane would it be if the whole country had to keep relying on a single ship to save us from major existential threats? Star Trek asks us to repeatedly believe that there’s only one ship within spitting distance of the entire solar system that can take care of the crisis du jour. It’s completely unbelievable, but this Wolf 359 home fleet theory helps make these frustrating moments make more sense. 

It’s entirely possible that, in the time of Star Trek: The Original Series and its spinoff movies, there wasn’t a home fleet. Starfleet was a lot smaller back then. Remember, the original Enterprise was one of only 12 Constitution-class vessels. However, both The Motion Picture and The Voyage Home had Earth being attacked by seemingly unstoppable alien forces. In each case, the only man who could stop things was James T. Kirk, but Starfleet must have known he wouldn’t be around forever. Therefore, sometime before The Next Generation premiered, they developed a home fleet that could protect the Earth from overpowered alien attackers.

The Worst Massacre In Starfleet History

Or so they thought. The Borg wiped the floor with the fleet at Wolf 359, which helps to explain why the admiralty needed to assemble an ersatz fleet in First Contact. They were still rebuilding from earlier losses, and most spare vessels were probably being ordered to areas of interest as the Dominion War loomed near. Speaking of which, that war is the most likely reason that the Enterprise was the only ship that could help in Nemesis. The movie took place four years after the Dominion War ended, and once more, Starfleet would have needed time to fully rebuild its fleet.

Obviously, these are only theories, but they are compelling ones. It makes sense that Starfleet would have learned its lessons from V’ger and the Alien Probe and developed a home fleet, only for it to be destroyed by the Borg at Wolf 359. Afterward, the next big Borg attack and the Dominion War destroyed many vessels, all while requiring the existing fleet to stretch that much thinner. Fortunately, Earth was in good hands. No matter how bad the war with the Dominion got, Captain Sisko and Admiral Ross ensured that there was always a fleet or two close enough to protect paradise, even from those pesky Breen.

By TeeJay Small
| Published 2 seconds ago

Paramount Pictures dropped an announcement trailer for their upcoming film, Focker In-Law, last week, and it immediately caught my attention. As you can probably tell from the title alone, the film is the fourth installment in the Meet The Parents film series, which originally kicked off in 2000. While I loved the original film and enjoyed parts of the 2004 sequel, I can’t help but feel frustrated that we’re getting the exact same movie for the fourth time. From the trailer, it looks like Focker In-Law promises to add some comedic beats from Ariana Grande, but little else.

A Strong Start And Slow Decline

In case you’re not hip to the franchise, the original Meet the Parents tells a very straightforward comedic story of an obnoxious, anxious man named Gaylord Focker (Ben Stiller), as he encounters his girlfriend’s family for the very first time. Focker wants to take this opportunity to get the family’s blessing to propose, but he’s mired by a series of misunderstandings and social faux pas at every turn. To make matters worse, Focker must contend with his girlfriend’s domineering ex-CIA father, Jack (Robert De Niro).

The second film, Meet The Fockers, introduces some fresh talent, flips the script on Jack a little bit by taking him out of his comfort zone, and ratchets up the tension as the happy couple navigate their upcoming wedding and a premarital pregnancy. It’s sort of unnecessary, but it’s a harmless way to squeeze more laughs out of a pretty simple premise. Then, in 2010, we got Little Fockers, which produced absolutely no memorable moments whatsoever. Seriously, Ben Stiller even took to X this week to say “I stand by the first two” installments in the franchise, ignoring the third film entirely.

The Same Old Jokes For A New Generation

Now, it looks like we’re due for the same material a fourth time with Focker In-Law. Greg Focker is still an awkward, bumbling mess, while the aging Jack flexes his people skills and dunks on his son-in-law for having a stupid last name. Meanwhile, a new generation of Focker men have emerged, with Greg’s son Henry (Skyler Gisondo) planning to propose to his girlfriend, Olivia Jones (Ariana Grande). From the trailer, it looks like Grande plays an FBI hostage negotiator, who wishes to pry Focker Jr. away from his emotionally topsy-turvy family in favor of a life of relative normalcy.

Will I watch this movie as soon as it comes out? Almost certainly. But will I have any memory of seeing it within hours of leaving the theater? I’ve got my doubts. The truth is, Focker In-Law could have been an opportunity to completely reshape the characters in fun and exciting ways. We could have had Greg really come into his own with age, assuming a more confident and bullish attitude. We could have even seen him and Jack get on the same page for once, and work together to test Ariana Grande’s worthiness to enter the coveted “circle of trust.”

Instead, it seems like we’re due for another 90 minutes of Robert De Niro rolling his eyes at Ben Stiller, and conflicts driven by characters who refuse to sit down and explain themselves in plain English. The trailer reveals that even minor side characters from the other film are returning to do their same schtick. I’m not mad about Focker In-Law basically recycling the Meet The Parents script for the fourth time, but I am a bit disappointed, since I know for a fact that Stiller, De Niro, and the others are capable of putting out something much stronger.

In fairness, this is all a reaction to a single trailer. There’s an extremely minute chance that Focker In-Law subverts all my expectations, and delivers a new comedy classic that can hold its own. There’s a similarly likely chance that the earth is obliterated by a meteor before the film hits theaters, but I won’t be holding my breath either way. If this film is what Ben Stiller needs to finance a third season of Severance, then I’m content to buy 50 tickets and give Focker In-Law the best damn opening weekend I can.

The Pitt has never exactly been a show that lets its characters breathe easy, but Dr. Robby’s Season 2 ending still hit especially hard. After everything he’d been carrying, the image of him holding Baby Jane Doe felt like the kind of moment designed to send fans spiraling into theory mode. Maybe this was a turning point. Maybe he was finally choosing life over burnout. Maybe, in the wildest version of that idea, he was somehow about to become her foster parent. As it turns out, that last part is very much not happening.

Speaking to TVLine, creator R. Scott Gemmill shut down the Baby Jane Doe adoption theory pretty quickly. Asked if there was any world where Robby (Noah Wyle) is fostering the baby in Season 3, Gemmill said, “No. We joked about it — cutting to him on his motorcycle with the baby in a Baby Bjorn — but no. Whether we follow up with Baby Jane Doe remains to be seen, but he’s got his hands full with his spirit quest.”

He also confirmed that Robby does go through with that trip, adding, “No, he ends up going. In those final moments with the baby, Robby finally puts her down and decides to go. Part of it is, he feels he has to go now because he’s talked about it for so long. One of the things we play in Season 3 is that he comes back, but he doesn’t come back to the hospital right away.”

What Can We Expect From ‘The Pitt’ Season 3?

Gemmill also said Season 3 will center on Robby “definitely putting in the work, doing the work, and trying to heal — and needing the work that he hasn’t put in himself.” That all points to a pretty different start for Robby next season than fans may have expected. Gemmill confirmed The Pitt will make a four-month jump and begin in November, which gives the series a colder setting and a little more breathing room without leaping too far ahead. He told TVLine:

“We’re only going to do a four-month jump. We’ll start in November. That serves a lot of purposes for us. It gives us some cold-weather scenarios, but also allows us to keep people a little longer who would normally be moving on, if we want. Sometimes those big jumps aren’t always ideal. There’s a lot of information you have to catch up on, so this way it’s less of a dump.”

The Pitt streams on HBO Max.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Release Date

January 9, 2025

Network

Max

Advertisement

Showrunner

R. Scott Gemmill

Advertisement

Directors

Amanda Marsalis

Writers

Advertisement

Joe Sachs, Cynthia Adarkwa

Advertisement

• 

  Noah Wyle

  Dr. Michael ‘Robby’ Robinavitch

  Advertisement
• 

  Tracy Ifeachor

  Dr. Heather Collins

  Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Fans of “Euphoria” are calling for the cancellation of the show over the introduction of more provocative scenes.

The backlash is largely focused on Sydney Sweeney’s character, Cassie Howard, who in the new season takes on the lifestyle of an OnlyFans creator. Creator Sam Levinson has yet to address the criticism directly, but has previously defended his work, saying we live in a “sexualized world.”

Sydney Sweeney herself has also not responded, though she has previously shown that she has no issue playing the role.

Sydney Sweeney Appeared In More Provocative Scenes For Season 3

After waiting four years for the third season of “Euphoria,” fans of the show have expressed dissatisfaction with how creator Sam Levinson chose to portray Sydney Sweeney’s character,  Cassie Howard.

Some critics have accused the show of leaning into “disturbing” and “misogynistic” storylines, in relation to how Sweeney’s character is featured in even more provocative scenes than in previous seasons.

In one scene, the actress is dressed as an adult baby with her legs spread upwards in a seductive manner, while another shows her styled as a dog on a leash, wearing only lingerie to cover her body.

She is also featured in other revealing scenarios, including one where ice cream drips down her chest and another where she is wrapped in a soaking wet, see-through American flag.

In yet another scene, she is shown wearing only a nude thong for what appears to be a baseball-themed shoot.

See some of the scenes here.

Sydney Sweeney Was Criticized For Acting The Provocative Scenes

Beyond the criticism of Levinson writing such scenes into the script, most fans struggled to understand why Sweeney agreed to perform them despite their highly provocative nature.

A user asked, “How is Sydney even agreeing to do this season of Euphoria?” while another said, “Why would Sydney agree to doing allat… weird.”

One netizen, who, like many others, described the scenes as a “humiliation ritual,” also claimed they could no longer bear seeing Sweeney in such situations.

“Please god i cant keep seeing Cassie degrade herself in the most embarrassing ways imaginable,” the individual noted.

One other person called for the outright cancellation of the show, while questioning the essence of the new storyline.

Syndey Sweeney Was Excited About Her Character On The Show’s Third Season

On her part, Sweeney appeared to have no issues acting out the scenes, as she gushed about her character during the premiere of season three.

“I mean, Cassie’s a crazy character,” the actress told Entertainment Tonight at the time. “She will do anything and at all costs to be famous this season, and she makes a lot of very wild and interesting choices.”

She has also previously talked about her raunchy scenes, noting that she doesn’t have a problem playing such roles, while calling out a “stigma” against actresses who appear nude on screen.

The New Season Has Suffered Poor Reviews From Critics

Amid the backlash from fans, “Euphoria” season three has also been poorly received by movie critics.

The New York Post described the storyline as “lazy writing,” adding that it “sacrifices depth for absurdity.”

“For Zendaya, Elordi and Sweeney, ‘Euphoria’ launched them into stardom, and now it brought them back for material that doesn’t meet their talents,” read the outlet’s review.

Ben Travers of IndieWire described the show’s plot as “maddeningly inert” compared to previous seasons.

He added, “Most characters aren’t changing, nor are their motivations to change clear to them or novel to us. The result is a start to the supposedly final season that grows old instead of up, while evoking a once-unthinkable question: How could ‘Euphoria’ become boring?”

Meanwhile, season three of “Euphoria” is currently the lowest-rated season of the series on Rotten Tomatoes, sitting at 40%, which is approximately half the rating of seasons one and two.

‘Euphoria’ Creator Previously Defended The Explicit Nature Of His Work

Levinson has not directly responded to the criticism targeting his show, but he likely has no plans to change his style, given the defense of his work at the 2023 Cannes Film Festival.

At the time, he shared that his work reflects the reality of young teenagers today, particularly how they are often interested in exploring their sexuality through exposure to pornographic material.

“We live in a very sexualized world,” he said at the festival. “The influence of pornography is really strong in terms of the psyche of young people.”

For now, only two of the season’s eight episodes have been released, with the next expected to debut on April 26, followed by weekly releases until the finale.