President Donald Trump isn’t mourning the end of The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.

A day after the final episode of the late night talk show aired, Trump, 79, responded to its end by sharing an AI-generated video of himself and Colbert, 62, via X.

In the video shared on Friday, May 22, an AI version of Trump approached an AI version of Colbert on The Late Show and grabbed him by the shoulders. Trump then picked up Colbert and threw him in an on-stage dumpster. Trump closed the dumpster’s lid with Colbert inside, then smirked and began dancing.

The AI footage was also posted via the official White House account on X, with the accompanying caption reading, “Bye-bye 👋.”

Related: Stephen Colbert Responds to Trump Celebrating ‘The Late Show’ Cancellation

Stephen Colbert had a few choice words for President Donald Trump after The Late Show was canceled. “I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings,” Trump, 79, shared via his Truth Social page on Friday, July 18, just a day after Colbert, 61, announced his show’s cancellation. Well, […]

Trump also took to social media platform, Truth Social, on Friday to comment on The Late Show’s demise.

“Stephen Colbert’s firing from CBS was the ‘Beginning of the End’ for untalented, nasty, highly overpaid, not funny, and very poorly rated Late Night Television Hosts,” Trump wrote. “Others, of even less talent, to soon follow. May they all Rest in Peace!”

Colbert’s final episode aired on Thursday, May 21, almost a year after CBS announced in July 2025 that the show was being axed.

The move caused instant backlash from viewers at the time due to its popularity and the perception that the decision may have been due to Colbert’s political comments.

Network executives then released a statement defending their call to pull the plug on the show. The statement insisted the decision was not “related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount” and claimed it was  due to financial reasons.

Thank You!

You have successfully subscribed.

Advertisement

Critics raised eyebrows over the timing of the show’s cancellation, which came after an episode in which Colbert spoke out about Paramount, CBS’ parent company, settling what he called “a nuisance lawsuit” brought by Trump. In his lawsuit, the president alleged that 60 Minutes had unfairly edited an interview of Kamala Harris.

“I do not dispute their rationale [that it was for financial reasons],” Colbert told The New York Times in April when asked about viewers who are questioning the reason for his late night talk show coming to an end. “I do make jokes about it.”

He added, “But I also completely understand why people would say (A) that doesn’t make sense to me and (B) that seems fishy to me,” he noted. “Because the network did it to themselves by bending the knee to the Trump administration over a $20 billion, settled for $16 million, completely frivolous lawsuit.”

Katie Bates admits she felt betrayed by silence after opening up about a “painful” childhood incident.

Posting via her Instagram Story on Friday, May 22, Bates, 25, shared more of her feelings as she faces ongoing family tension due to the undisclosed past event.

Bates said she was posting “to clarify what I meant when I said I lost about 90% of my family relationships” in her previous post.

“After choosing to address painful things from my childhood, I quickly learned that not everyone responds to honesty and healing with support. Some people choose silence!! Some choose distance. Some choose to minimize or avoid uncomfortable truths altogether,” she wrote via the Instagram Story. “But when someone has been repeatedly harmed, staying silent or distancing yourself despite knowing the truth can become its own form of betrayal. Neutrality doesn’t always equal innocence and it certainly doesn’t equal support!”

Related: Katie Bates Says She ‘Lost’ Family Relationships After Childhood Incident

Katie Bates is opening up about experiencing family strain after addressing an incident from her childhood. “I’ve been getting flooded with messages like this from people who are genuinely concerned for me so I want to answer this as honestly as I can,” Bates, 25, wrote via her Instagram Story on Wednesday, May 20, when […]

Bates concluded, “I stayed silent for a long time and I’m not doing that anymore.”

The Growing Up Bates alum revealed on Wednesday, May 20, that she made the choice to leave Tennessee amid family strain.

“A lot of people are confused by my decision to leave Tennessee, especially because from the outside it may look like I have a big support system here. The truth is, sometimes things happening behind closed doors are a lot more complicated and painful than what people see publicly,” wrote via her Instagram Story at the time.

She continued, “Recently I chose to address something that happened throughout my childhood that I wish I had the strength to address years ago. Unfortunately after doing so I lost relationships with about 90 percent of my family. This has been incredibly heartbreaking and heavy to walk through. I’m not going to share details online, but I’m also done pretending everything is OK just to protect appearances.”

Thank You!

You have successfully subscribed.

Advertisement

Bates added that she decided that remaining in Tennessee would not be in her best interests, explaining she felt it was “no longer healthy” for her.

Related: Bringing Up Bates’ Katie Bates Breaks Silence on Husband Travis’ Affair

Bringing Up Bates alum Katie Bates has broken her silence after her husband, Travis Clark, admitted his infidelity. “This is not how I imagined beginning this year or this new season of our lives,” Bates, 25, began in a lengthy statement shared via Instagram late on Monday, January 19. “This has been an incredibly painful […]

Advertisement

Instead, she is embarking on a fresh start alongside her husband Travis Clark and their two children. (The couple married in 2023 and were embroiled in a cheating scandal in January when Clark, 24, admitted to having an affair.)

“I’m choosing to move forward, finally heal and build a peaceful life for myself and my children,” she wrote. “More than anything, I’m desperately leaning on God right now even when things feel painful, confusing and lonely. I don’t have every answer right now, but I believe God can bring healing and peace out of even the hardest situations.”

If you’re in a bind, don’t call Skai Jackson for money! In a new interview, the Disney star revealed that she runs a strict program when it comes to her finances. So strict that she doesn’t lend out money to anyone—including her best friends or loved ones.

Speaking with Justin Laboy on his “The Justin Laboy Show,” the “Jessie” actress responded to Laboy’s question about how she has developed the ability to say no to friends and family who ask her for money.

“I just say no,” she said boldly.

As she went on, Jackson said that continuing the conversation after saying no allows people to believe there is room to negotiate.

Advertisement

“If you just say no, there’s no response. … It’s just like, ‘Oh, well, she said no. Okay,’” she said.

Skai Jackson Said It’s Not Her ‘Problem’ To Loan Money To People Who May Be Struggling

During the conversation, Laboy told Jackson that he once had to navigate a challenging conversation with someone who had asked him for a large amount, specifically $10,000. Laboy explained that he’s tried to “meet people halfway,” prompting Jackson to fire back.

“You can’t do that,” she said, revealing that she’s only been asked to loan money to people with whom she doesn’t have that great a relationship.

“People real close to me, like my best, best friends, they have never even asked me for money,” she said.

“People that I haven’t heard from in years are like, ‘Oh, my car [is] not working. Can you get me an Uber?’ I’m like, ‘No, you should have thought about that,’” Jackson added before revealing she recently had to tell someone she wasn’t going to send them money.

Advertisement

“Someone did reach out. They were like, ‘My brother’s not answering. Can you call me an Uber, and I need some food?’ I said, ‘That’s not my problem,’” she explained.

Skai Jackson Opens Up About Spending Money On Men When She’s In A Relationship

Staying on the topic of money, Laboy asked Jackson whether she’d consider herself to be a “trick” when in a relationship.

For those who may be unfamiliar, a trick, in this context, is a person who spends a great deal of money on someone in hopes of securing a relationship.

“No,” Jackson said assuredly before revealing that she’s only spent money on partners for special occasions, such as birthdays.

“No, I’ll do nice things,” she said. “You know, if it’s a dinner, I might pay for the bill. Not every time, though, of course. That’s crazy.”

Advertisement

“I love doing birthday gifts, I will say that,” she said before revealing that she’s spent a pretty penny in the past on shoes for a certain someone’s special day.

Jackson Isn’t The Only Celebrity Who Has Said No To Family Members Asking For Money

Jackson’s philosophy around money isn’t unique to her. In 2022, billionaire rapper Jay-Z stirred up a bit of chaos after appearing to say he wouldn’t loan his cousin $4,800 to help them start a business.

On Kevin Hart’s “Heart to Hart” podcast, the “Tom Ford” rapper said he often has to have conversations with family members about money, even during joyous occasions such as the holiday season.

Advertisement

“You have cousins, you gotta go home for Thanksgiving, and people are talking to you like Kevin Hart, and you’re going home for solace,” he said. “You want family, you’re going home for peace of mind, and you got your cousins in your grandma’s living room saying, ‘Yo, man, I got this play. If you just give me $4,800, I could make you $2 million.’”

Jay-Z went on to say he had a tough conversation with his cousin after their request, implying he also said no.

“You like, ‘It don’t work like that.’ And you gotta explain to him, ‘Life isn’t like that. Money isn’t free, and no one’s giving out opportunities.’ If it sounds too good to be true, it is,” he said.

@breakfastclubam

🚨 #Jayz is getting backlash for refusing to loan his cousin $4,800… what’s your take 👀 let’s discuss ⬇️ . Follow @breakfastclubam 📺

Advertisement

♬ original sound – The Breakfast Club

Popular podcasters Charlamagne Tha God and the rest of the “Breakfast Club” crew weighed in on Jay-Z’s comments, prompting social media users to share their thoughts on the matter.

One netizen said that they agreed with Jay-Z, writing, “[He’s not wrong]! Don’t count my pockets.” Another user said, “It’s like winning the lottery… everyone wants a hand out.”

“It’s never about the money, it’s the principle,” a third said. “Once people start to understand that, these types of convos will be irrelevant.”

Jackson’s statements received a similar reaction, considering one user commented, “I’m very giving, but people will drain your pockets to a hole if you allow them to.”

Advertisement

A second said, “She not wrong. She worked for it, it’s hers. Can’t be entitled to people’s money.”

But the comments weren’t all positive, as one user suggested that Jackson was out of line for refusing to get someone an Uber when they needed transportation. “Shorty whilin,” someone said, while another said, “An Uber tho… that’s messed up, couldn’t do that to my folks.”

No one can critique the iconic actress more than Anne Hathaway herself!

The actress revealed that while fans got to see the brilliance on the screen for “Mother Mary,” she almost gave up midway due to the overwhelming feeling that she put up a poor performance.

Anne Hathaway has equally admitted that several producers and directors may find her annoying due to her meticulous nature on set, where she makes sure she understands every element of the movie.

The actress revealed that when she saw early footage of herself performing original songs written by Jack Antonoff, Charli XCX, and FKA Twigs, she panicked and nearly called it quits on the movie.

She explained that she felt she looked so bad, and she would never ask people to come and sit through that. In her words:

“This is really bad… I don’t know that I can ask people to come to see this.”

Hathaway continued that her next destination after the set that day was her husband’s arms, where she told him she would leave the project for good.

Upon critical thinking, the actress told Elle that she realized that there was greater honor in getting fired than actually quitting, so she continued to fine-tune her singing skills.

A year after production for “Mother Mary” ended, the actress headed to the studio to show off the gains of her singing lessons to Jack Antonoff, who immediately noticed that she had been working.

The Actress Gave A Glimpse At Her Hassle-Free Marriage To Adam Shulman

Speaking of her blissful union to Shulman, Hathaway acknowledged that he is the most supportive man to partner with because he wholeheartedly supports her endeavors. 

As noted by US Magazine, Hathaway added that despite the busy year she had when shooting “Mother Mary,” “The Devil Wears Prada 2,” The Odyssey,” and “Verity,” Shulman held her down. 

The actress continued praising her beau, adding that he checks all the boxes when it comes to being amazing and stepping up to the scene. In her words:

“It’s one thing to have dreams. It’s another thing to have somebody who helps you achieve them. I absolutely would not be able to have achieved what I’ve done without my husband.”

Hathaway and Shulman have been in one of the most enduring relationships in Hollywood. They tied the knot in 2012, six years after meeting at the Palm Springs International Film Festival in 2008, and share two adorable sons, Jonathan and Jack.

Inside Anne Hathaway’s Intensive Creative Process

Although the media personality gets nervous, she also adopts a premium quality assurance technique when appearing in projects.

Hathaway admitted that while her measures to achieve perfection may appear offensive to some producers and directors, it is the only way for her to achieve a successful run.

To deal with the seemingly uncomfortable effects of her technique, she revealed that she often gives her directors a hint of what to expect.

As noted by The Blast, Hathaway stated that it may be a bit difficult for those who have not had any contact with her in the past, but everything sorts itself out in the end.

Perhaps these measures have been helpful in ensuring her longevity in an industry where women are believed to peak at 35.

The actress is grateful to have exceeded that well into her 40s alongside several other women, although there is still more room for tangible growth.

The Mother-Of-Two Shared A Reassuring Perspective On Aging

Hathaway, however confident she may appear to be, admits that she has days when confidence does not carry her.

As reported by The Blast, she revealed that it happened one day, when she looked in the mirror and panicked about her appearance because she had packed one of her “aspirational swimsuits” on a family trip.

She soon snapped back into the reality that what her family thought about her superseded anything a stranger might have to say.

Hathaway continued that she also understood that her body looked exactly how it should be at 43 years old. The actress added that over the years, her perspective on aging had also evolved very positively.

“I think that very often, conversations about aging presume that the first part of life is the happiest and the most fulfilling, and I don’t necessarily think that’s true. I wasn’t expecting to find another gear at 40,” the actress explained.

How Anne Hathaway Stays Youthful

Hathaway sparked fresh cosmetic surgery speculation with back-to-back stunning appearances at the 2025 Met Gala and the Ralph Lauren Fall 2025 runway show in Manhattan.

Fans trooped to social media with comments about her youthful glow, with speculations that she got work done.

Plastic surgeon Gary Motykie weighed in on the conversation, claiming that the actress may have had work done on her nose.

However, Hathaway has long denied going under the knife, previously admitting only that she once considered a nose job while growing up because she felt insecure about her appearance.

The Oscar winner eventually addressed the rumors about her 2025 outings, skillfully refusing to directly confirm or deny anything, but explaining that she prefers to keep personal medical matters private.

The actress instead credited her renewed glow to skincare, fitness, healthier lifestyle choices like quitting alcohol, and a few beauty tricks like braided hairstyles that pull her face back.

Anne Hathaway always comes out on top in the end!

Meghan Markle has sparked fresh controversy after a selfie with a divisive right-wing politician went viral.

The image, taken during her recent trip to Geneva, shows Meghan smiling alongside Wille Rydman, Finland’s Minister of Social Affairs and Health.

Amid backlash over the photo, Meghan denied having any direct affiliation with Rydman and admitted she did not know who he was before the picture was taken.

Meghan appears to have unwittingly sparked fresh controversy after posing for a selfie with Rydman.

In recent years, the Finnish politician has faced criticism over allegations of racism, including claims that he once used a derogatory term to refer to people from the Middle East. He has also faced backlash over separate allegations of inappropriate conduct involving several women.

As speculation continues to grow about any possible connection between Meghan and Rydman, fueled in part by their friendly appearance in the photo, the Duchess has now denied any association with him.

According to a spokesman for Meghan, she had no idea who Rydman was before taking the selfie and was unaware of the allegations against him.

Advertisement

“To be absolutely clear, the Duchess does not know Mr. Rydman, had no prior awareness of him attending the event, and was unfamiliar with the concerning reports relating to him,” the rep said, per the Daily Mail.

Meghan’s Rep Explains How The Viral Selfie Happened

Meghan’s team has now explained how she came to take a selfie with Rydman, whose past controversies have placed the photo under scrutiny.

According to a representative for the former actress, the minister asked the Duchess for a selfie after a meal at the Geneva meeting, where several ministers and delegates were in attendance.

Given the size of the gathering, the rep explained that it would not have been possible to vet every person who approached Meghan for a photo.

“The Duchess attended a dinner hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, where more than 25 ministers and delegates were present ahead of the World Health Assembly,” they said. They added, “As she was leaving the venue, a number of attendees approached her requesting photographs. As is often the case at public engagements, and where time permits, the Duchess politely obliges such requests.”

Advertisement

Meghan Markle Was In Geneva For Child Advocacy

Meghan was in Geneva to advocate for children’s online safety and delivered an emotional speech at the inauguration of the Lost Screen Memorial, per Hello Magazine.

In her remarks, the Duchess posed powerful questions about the dangers children face online, asking, “How many more millions of children will be harmed by products that, while innovative, are still designed without sufficient safeguards?”

“When will children be able to enjoy the extraordinary potential of technology without it compromising their wellbeing?” she also posed.

Advertisement

At the same time, the mother of two shared real-life stories of families whose children were affected by the harmful side of social media and issued a call for parents to take action.

“Let our children look back at this moment, and let them feel proud of us… That we chose something better. For them, and for us all,” Meghan said.

Megyn Kelly Slams Meghan’s Geneva Speech

However, Meghan’s speech did not go down well with everyone, with political commentator Megyn Kelly disparaging her for the apparent low turnout in Geneva.

“Would you take a look at the crowd that showed up or didn’t… literally nobody is on the side,” Kelly said on Tuesday, May 19, episode of “The Megyn Kelly Show.”

“No one is listening to her. We have video of a woman behind her who basically is like putting the jacket on… yawning, stretching,” the podcaster continued.

Advertisement

She added, “This is the crowd. It’s the public’s verdict on, we don’t give a sh-t about you. Shut up and go live your life, and stop bothering us with your fake profundities and fake title. It’s officially OVER.”

Meghan Markle Slammed Over Post Featuring Daughter

Meghan also faced backlash after posting a photo of her daughter on social media shortly before traveling to Geneva for the child advocacy event.

The image showed Princess Lilibet helping her prepare for the trip, alongside the caption: “Mama’s little helper.”

Journalist Tom Sykes slammed the move as “staggeringly tone-deaf,” arguing that it undermined Meghan’s message about protecting children from the harms of social media.

“A woman who is about to stand alongside the world’s most senior public health official and talk about the measurable and preventable harms of exposing children to social media has just — voluntarily, for no apparent reason other than self-promotion — exposed her own child to social media,” he wrote.

Advertisement

With Marshals and Dutton Ranch currently airing their first seasons, Taylor Sheridan’s Yellowstone universe is hardly short on new branches. Still, for several years now, fans have been holding out hope that Sheridan’s proposed Texas-based 6666 spin-off might still happen. The potential series about the real-life Four Sixes Ranch in the Lone Star State would follow Jefferson White‘s Jimmy Hurdstrom as he builds a new life away from the Dutton drama that defined Yellowstone. That alone makes 6666 an intriguing expansion of the franchise, but its real promise may be bigger than another spin-off. Sheridan’s long-delayed series could be his modern answer to classic Western programs like Rawhide — a grounded, working-cowboy drama less interested in family dynasty and more focused on the day-to-day mythology of the American West.

‘Yellowstone: 6666’ Could Offer a Different Take on the Modern American West

Back in 2021, Sheridan announced that 6666 was in development, and fans wondered what the Texas-based cowboy drama would entail. As the fourth season of Yellowstone sent Jimmy down south to the Four Sixes, it seemed as if Sheridan was doing everything in his power to move at least part of the Dutton narrative to the Lone Star State. By the time Season 4 ended, Jimmy chose to remain in Texas, having gotten engaged to Emily (Kathryn Kelly) and begun a new life as a genuine cowboy in the best state for the profession. Season 5, likewise, spent a considerable amount of time down south. But with so many Yellowstone sequel spin-offs currently in development — be it CBS’s upcoming Y: Marshals, the Kelly Reilly and Cole Hauser Dutton Ranch project, or The Madison, another Montana-based series about rich East Coasters moving West — 6666 could be a breath of fresh air.

So much of the greater Yellowstone universe, including its various prequels, focuses primarily on the Dutton family. In many respects, many of Sheridan’s existing shows are still too similar to Yellowstone to move beyond the boundaries that the neo-Western franchise has set for itself — the fact that 1923‘s plot is nearly identical to Yellowstone‘s is a glaring reminder that this franchise needs some fresh blood. In that sense, 6666 could very well be the answer. Some of the best material in Yellowstone‘s final three seasons, especially, was everything that occurred with the ranch hands on the open plains and in the bunkhouse. Setting a new spin-off on the Four Sixes, where we’ve seen what a large-scale cattle operation can do, is one exciting way to emphasize this tried-and-true element of Sheridan’s Western brand.

Instead of focusing on the capitalistic dangers of land-grabbing plots and hostile takeovers, 6666 is a project that has the potential to revolve around the simple Texan cowboys who produce much of the country’s beef. Not only could it further educate audiences on how the industry works, but it could also shed light on a lesser-understood profession and elevate the modern cowboy beyond rodeo kings and Old West heroes. Dealing in more intensive situations like cattle drives and battling the elements, as well as potential animal threats or cattle wrestlers, is something that Yellowstone promised from the start, only to get bogged down by its overall plot in the process. Without the need to infuse the Texan drama with the corporate side of things, we can certainly see the potential for 6666 as a drama that expands on the life and times of the modern-day American cowboy.

Taylor Sheridan’s ‘6666’ Spin-off Could Be a Serialized TV Western

Image via Paramount Plus

Advertisement

This is, of course, where the Rawhide comparisons come in. If Sheridan and Paramount were to lean into the cowboy drama of it all, 6666 could be a show that not only honors one of the most important professions in America but also serves as a modern-day answer to more traditional TV Westerns, with Rawhide being perhaps the most obvious of the bunch. What made a show like Rawhide so popular for so long was that it followed no-nonsense trailboss Gil Favor (Eric Fleming), ramrod Rowdy Yates (Clint Eastwood), and their crew of cowboys as they traveled across the Old West, often finding themselves in peculiar situations and in the middle of introspective character dramas that kept audiences returning for more. While television (including within the Western genre) isn’t structured quite like these old network shows these days, 6666 could learn from the show that got Eastwood his start by avoiding serialization and taking each episode at a time — the same way a cowboy takes things one day at a time.

Instead of fighting off land-grabbers and real estate developers again and again, the Texas-based series could get into the nitty-gritty of cowboy life, the struggles of juggling family, and the dangers that present themselves. For eight seasons, Rawhide made an adventure out of herding cattle across the American West, and now 6666 could do something similar in the Lone Star State. Over the course of four seasons on Yellowstone, Jimmy went from being a total screw-up and an active criminal to becoming a proficient cowboy worthy of the Four Sixes brand. By the time he returns in Season 5, he’s still the butt of the joke among his Yellowstone friends, but he has made a name for himself down south for his optimistic outlook and ability to overcome the odds against him. Emphasizing this type of character in 6666 would further separate it from the nihilistic flavor of Sheridan’s other Texas-made drama, Landman, and infuse a bit more life into the Yellowstone universe.

‘Yellowstone’s ‘6666’ Spin-off Has Been in Development Hell Since 2021

If you’re anything like this author and have been holding out hope that 6666 might still happen (despite the years of radio silence on the project), the sad news is that we may be out of luck. In speaking with The Daily Mail, Jefferson White was asked if he was in the works to return for a future Yellowstone Universe spin-off. “Not that I know of now,” he told the outlet. “I kept my fingers crossed, but also, I’d be grateful if I got to do more, and I’m grateful for what I got to do.” For those hoping that Sheridan has been in contact with the star about what might become of 6666, this could be a tough blow. Some people say “no news is good news,” but the saying doesn’t rightly apply to a long-anticipated television series that has largely faded out of the public eye, especially in the aftermath of the ending of the flagship drama it planned to spin off from.

Of course, just because White doesn’t know if he’s returning for more doesn’t mean that 6666 is completely off the table. In a sit-down with The Hollywood Reporter back in 2023, Sheridan, who owns the real-life Four Sixes Ranch, expressed his admiration for the Texan operation. “I grew up in the shadow of the Four Sixes,” he explained. “This was the ranch I based [Yellowstone’s] scope and operation on, because it didn’t exist in Montana.” Back then, Sheridan had told Paramount that the network needed patience in developing the project, as he needed to make sure it was possible for the series itself to work alongside the ranch, which is still in operation. It’s clear that Sheridan cares deeply for the Four Sixes, and in wanting to make it “the most famous ranch in America,” one can understand why a television series based on the working ranch would be the way to go about that.

Yet, Sheridan’s recent breakup with Paramount doesn’t offer us much comfort as we meditate on what could be. Perhaps Sheridan would be willing to revisit this project at another point in time, divorcing it from the Yellowstone Universe entirely. On the other hand, it could be that after working at it for quite some time, it proved too tough to crack. Either way, here’s hoping that we get some sort of update on 6666 in the near future — and that if it does happen, it will echo the classic television Westerns that played during the genre’s peak.

Yellowstone is available for streaming on Peacock, while Rawhide can be streamed in its entirety on PlutoTV.

By Chris Snellgrove
| Published 26 seconds ago

When Superman (2025) came out, it was a critical and commercial smash, able to leap fan cynicism in a single bound. It became the summer’s biggest hit, and it even outperformed two highly-hyped Marvel movies: The Thunderbolts and The Fantastic Four. This was proof that director and DCU Studios co-president James Gunn was the right man to reboot this cinematic universe and that its success might one day rival that of the MCU.

While there has been some beloved DCU content on the small screen (especially Peacemaker, Season 2), we won’t be getting more of this universe on the big screen until Supergirl comes out next month. Not only will this be Milly Alcock’s first full-length movie as the titular heroine, but it will be Jason Momoa’s introduction to the DCU as fan-favorite character, Lobo. The movie has been building buzz, but not as much as you might think, and there’s a reason for that. Simply put, DC Studios has been doing such an awful job of promoting this film through lackluster trailers and previews that they are effectively sabotaging its success.

Up, Up, And Away (From Good Marketing)

Supergirl made her surprise DCU debut by crashing into the Fortress of Solitude at the end of Superman. We find out that she’s the real owner of Krypto and that she likes to get hammered when she’s partying. Her Kryptonian biology keeps her from getting drunk on Earth, so she likes to tie one on by visiting planets with a red sun (it negates her superpowers). She flies off at the end of the movie, and this quirky introduction to an even quirkier character left audiences wondering what she’d be doing next.

The first trailer for Supergirl gave us glimpses of what to expect in the movie, but the presentation was something of a mixed bag. One of the first things we see is Krypto peeing on a Superman article, an action which Supergirl seemingly approves of. We then see her catching an intergalactic Uber to parts unknown. In fact, “unknown” is the real keyword here: the trailer gives no real hints as to the story of the film and pads its short runtime with generic explosions and a mysterious light shooting into the sky (a superhero staple). We even get generic thugs and quippy dialogue like “This does not look like it’s gonna end well … for you guys!” 

Are These Trailers Deliberately Bad?

It’s not the worst trailer in the world, but it’s certainly not the best. It gives no clue as to the main plot or who any of the new characters are. You don’t really walk away from this trailer with a solid idea of anything other than “Supergirl fights a bunch of bland bad guys.” Plus, the quip (which is repeated in the final trailer) seems weirdly out of place in the DCU. This is a cinematic universe trying to really establish its own identity, so why are we making the tagline something out of the “well, that just happened” school of Marvel writing?

The final Supergirl trailer is an improvement, if barely. We finally learn about the plot, which is a tug-the-heartstrings race to save a dying Krypto. Speaking of shamelessly manipulating the audience, the trailer begins with a video call from established hero Superman, where he worries about his cousin ever really finding herself. This is part of a major problem with these trailers: they oscillate between showing Supergirl as a carefree party gal and a lost soul tormented by the destruction of her planet. Maybe she’s supposed to be both, but the character dichotomy of the trailers makes the title character seem downright schizophrenic.

DC’s Latest Poster Boy 

The brief action scene with Momoa’s Lobo is a real highlight, but this trailer arguably doesn’t really flesh out who Supergirl is, making it tough to engage with the character on an emotional level (something DC desperately wants us to do). That problem is compounded by the character posters for the film, each of which features characters like Lobo and Supergirl striking a pose in front of the film’s logo. Unfortunately, the poses and expressions are pretty bad, making these professional actors look like cosplayers wearing their gear for the first time. Moreover, countless fans have joked about how these look painfully like posters for the low-budget CW Arrowverse shows.

To James Gunn and the rest of DC Studios, I can only ask, what the heck are you doing? Supergirl has all the ingredients of a smash hit. It’s the follow-up to last summer’s biggest movie, it features a beloved DCEU actor recast as an even more beloved comics character, and the whole plot centers on a sexy lady who loves her adorable dog. This movie would normally be on track for major box office success, but DC’s awful marketing has likely lasered away huge sections of prospective fans. Is it deliberate sabotage or just really bad marketing?

Either way, these bad early glimpses of the film may prove to be Kryptonite for Supergirl, and Gunn may learn that there’s one thing worse than bad word of mouth: having nobody to spread the word in the first place. 

Hilary Duff had an unexpectedly hilarious moment while appearing on “The Jennifer Hudson Show” after realizing not everyone remembers one of the biggest heartthrobs of the ‘90s. The singer and actress was left stunned when much of the audience appeared unfamiliar with the actor who once had her completely swooning as a kid.

During Wednesday’s episode of “The Jennifer Hudson Show,” Duff was asked by an audience member to reveal her childhood crush after actor Jacob Elordi recently named the “Lizzie McGuire” alum as his own celebrity crush.

Without hesitation, Duff named one of the ultimate teen idols of the ‘90s: Jonathan Taylor Thomas. But when she tried to gauge the crowd’s reaction, things quickly took an unexpected turn. “Do you remember JTT?” Duff asked, before turning to the audience.

After seeing confused faces, the actress jokingly realized she might be speaking to a younger crowd. “Look, you’re too young. You’re too young,” she said. “Please raise your hand if you know who I’m talking about.”

To Duff’s surprise, “not even half” of the audience appeared familiar with Thomas.

Duff Quickly Gave The Audience A ‘90s Pop Culture Lesson

Determined to educate viewers, Duff quickly launched into an explanation of why Jonathan Taylor Thomas was such a major star. “OK guys, he was on ‘Home Improvement,’” she explained.

Duff also reminded fans that Thomas voiced one of Disney’s most iconic animated characters. “He was also in ‘The Lion King.’ He was a kid. He was the voice of Simba, right?” she added.

The actress later admitted she also had another teenage crush: Zac Hanson, the youngest member of the Hanson brothers.

What Happened To Jonathan Taylor Thomas?

While Thomas was once one of Hollywood’s biggest young stars thanks to roles in “Home Improvement,” “The Lion King,” “Man of the House,” and “Tom and Huck,” he eventually stepped away from the spotlight.

After becoming a household name as a child actor, Thomas largely left Hollywood behind and kept a low profile. His last recurring acting role came on Tim Allen’s sitcom “Last Man Standing” between 2013 and 2015, while his most recent public sighting was during a rare outing in Southern California in 2023.

Advertisement

Hilary Duff Is Entering A New Music Era

Meanwhile, Duff has been making headlines of her own. The mother of four recently released her sixth studio album, “luck… or something,” marking her first music release in more than a decade.

The project also kicks off an exciting new chapter for the former Disney Channel star, who is preparing to hit the road for “The Lucky Me World Tour,” her first major tour since 2008. “I’m so excited for the scale to change,” Duff told PEOPLE in an interview regarding her “Small Rooms, Big Nerves” music outing earlier this year.

She continued, “There is something so sweet about getting to see everyone’s face, and being so intimate and close with everyone, and it was really a great way for me to start and build confidence, but I just feel like I know what I’m doing and kind of got my reps in.”

Hilary Duff Says New Music Is Finally Catching Up To The Classics

While longtime fans can likely expect plenty of nostalgia during “The Lucky Me Tour,” Duff has also been giving newer songs their moment in the spotlight. During recent performances, the singer included tracks from her latest album, including “Mature,” “Roommates,” and “Weather for Tennis,” a trend fans are expecting to continue once the tour officially kicks off.

Still, Duff admitted there’s been something especially meaningful about seeing how strongly audiences still connect to the music that made them fall in love with her in the first place. “What’s been so fun about the live shows is realizing how much the old songs mean to people,” Duff shared. “A lot of those songs just live rent-free in my head, so it’ll be nice for the other music to catch up and join the mix.”

Known for starring in Lizzie McGuire before becoming a pop star with hits from her triple-platinum debut album “Metamorphosis,” Duff continues to reconnect with longtime fans.

Advertisement

By Robert Scucci
| Published 8 seconds ago

Most subgenres fall into the same trap because certain beats and motifs have to be utilized. That’s what subgenres are. The pitfall that lesser films fall into is not knowing how to elevate a premise that’s inherently derivative, which is why there are so many dime-a-dozen psychological thrillers, slashers, and, in the case of 2002’s Panic Room, home invasion flicks.

But here’s the thing about David Fincher, the film’s director: he’s insanely good at taking a concept that seems boilerplate at face value and elevating it in a way that keeps it interesting. Panic Room, for all intents and purposes, is contrived. It’s stock by design. It’s a story about three guys breaking into a house where a woman and her pre-teen daughter live alone, and then fighting for survival with whatever limited resources they have at their disposal.

Panic Room Is Shot Like No Other Home Invasion Flick

If you’re a fan of thrillers, you probably lost count of how many home invasion flicks you’ve watched because they all start blending together. David Fincher knew this, so he flipped the entire subgenre on its head by going for a “cameraless” effect that allowed him to shoot impossibly long tracking shots that appear to happen in one unbroken take. His goal was to imply that “there’s no camera operator, no crew, and no track,” meaning the camera could go anywhere.

The result is a series of shots that start in the downstairs kitchen, work their way through cabinets, walls, and air ducts, push up winding flights of stairs, and, in some cases, float through the ceiling into the floor above. What’s most impressive is that, for a 2002 production, the computer-generated imagery never breaks the immersion. Like The Shining, it’s almost as if we’re seeing the entire story unfold from the house’s perspective, which allows the viewer to keep tabs on every character like a fly on the wall hopping from room to room undetected.

This shooting method is what makes Panic Room a cut above its contemporaries because no other home invasion film looks quite like this one. Coupled with David Koepp’s tight screenplay and the talent of its small cast, what would otherwise be a simple premise becomes a Hitchcockian nightmare that keeps you watching because it all feels so fresh.

A Yawn-Fest In Theory, A Masterclass In Practice

I’ll keep the synopsis brief here because Panic Room, like most home invasion plots, really doesn’t have much going on. How these things escalate is what really matters.

When Meg Altman (Jodie Foster) moves into a new NYC home with her 11-year-old daughter, Sarah (Kristen Stewart), they’re surprised to learn that the home’s previous owner, an eccentric millionaire, had an impenetrable panic room built in the master bedroom complete with closed-circuit televisions, a hard-wired telephone, and food rations. The day gets away from our protagonists, and Meg falls asleep before finishing the setup of some of the communications devices in the miniature bunker.

As luck would have it, three criminals, Junior (Jared Leto), Burnham (Forest Whitaker), and Raoul (Dwight Yoakam), have been casing the joint because the previous owner was Junior’s grandfather, and Junior has reason to believe millions of dollars are hidden inside the secret room.

They show up in the middle of the night while Meg and Sarah are sleeping, but Meg wakes up, realizes they’re being robbed, grabs Sarah, and retreats to the panic room so she can collect her thoughts and figure out her next move. The emergency phone line isn’t properly set up, but she can still communicate with the criminals through the intercom, and they refuse to leave until they get what they came for.

That’s the entire plot to Panic Room. Like I said, pretty standard stuff because if you’ve seen one home invasion movie, you’ve pretty much seen them all.

Why It’s A Cut Above

The movie really starts cooking when we get frantic shots from the house’s perspective, showing us where the criminals are wandering, what Meg and Sarah are seeing through the closed-circuit cameras, and creating a palpable amount of tension during the scenes that really matter, like when Meg realizes she dropped her cellphone near her bed before locking down and starts calculating whether she can run out, grab it, and make it back to safety.

It’s not just the “camera” work in Panic Room that seals the deal, however, because the criminals constantly getting into it with each other adds additional layers of tension to the mix. Jared Leto is perfect as the entitled loudmouth with a Napoleon complex because he genuinely believes he deserves his grandfather’s bearer bonds. He’s so unlikeable and shortsighted that he brings along Raoul to help with the job, something Burnham isn’t thrilled about from the jump.

So we have an unhinged, idiotic leader and an unpredictable bruiser willing to take extreme measures, including killing the family in the house, if he has to. That leaves Burnham, the only criminal with a conscience. The reason he’s valuable to Junior is because he installs safe rooms for a living and potentially knows how to crack them if he can properly size up the job. His reluctance to follow through makes the dynamic work because nobody was supposed to be in the house that night, and he genuinely feels terrible about how complicated things have become for Meg and Sarah.

In an ideal world, the robbery would have been a victimless crime. Three guys break into a home that nobody has moved into yet and steal money from a dead guy that nobody else knows exists. The alleged simplicity of the job compared to how the evening actually plays out makes the whole thing feel exponentially more disastrous because now Meg and Sarah are fearing for their lives, especially when the zero-hour trope gets added to the mix in the form of Sarah needing insulin to prevent her from falling into a diabetic coma.

Every single beat and setup in Panic Room is derivative. Every single escalation is expected. Every single trope is celebrated. But the movie never feels like a slog to get through. You go into this movie knowing exactly how it’s going to end, but it’s such a wild ride getting there that you simply do not care that you’ve seen so many different versions of this same story before.

If there’s one thing that took me out of the movie, it was how quickly Meg adapted to certain situations. Not because I don’t believe in the concept of a strong, independent woman or anything like that, but because your average person simply isn’t going to be this prepared for a home invasion, especially one that starts while they’re sleeping. There’s no way to practice for this kind of scenario, especially in a house you literally moved into earlier that day.

Still, if the only thing that really bothers me is the fact that somebody learned the floor plan to their own house faster than I ever reasonably could, I’d say Fincher and company did a hell of a job here.

Panic Room holds up nearly 25 years later for all of these reasons. It’s a run-of-the-mill story that feels completely original because of the creative choices behind its production. Jared Leto getting put in his place by his much bigger, much more intimidating henchman also put a smile on my face, because why wouldn’t it?

As of this writing, you can stream Panic Room on Hulu.

Brooke Shields says it was “difficult” allowing her daughter, Rowan Henchy, to join season 2 of Bravo’s “Next Gen NYC.” During a new interview, the “Hannah Montana” actress also got real about the fears she had surrounding the series.

Speaking with Entertainment Weekly, Shields, 60, touched on her daughter’s journey into the world of unscripted television, admitting it was challenging for her to get on board at first.

“This has been a really difficult journey for me because I would say to her, ‘We’re not a reality family. That’s just never been our MO,’” she said.

Continuing, Shields admitted she was a bit nervous about how her daughter’s role in the upcoming batch of episodes could impact her down the line.

“And I got very nervous that it might affect her or somehow hinder a career that she wants to have in broadcast news and journalism. That’s what she studied at university,” said Shields.

Brooke Shields Said She Was ‘Sick To My Stomach’ After Learning Her Daughter Was Approached To Join Reality Show

Shields shared a similar message just days ago, according to a previous report from The Blast, admitting she didn’t know how to feel at first because she got her start differently.

“They didn’t have reality shows, that’s a different….,” Shields said. “And you were not praised for bad behavior. Bad behavior was not really the goal. So a lot of rating is geared towards that.”

Elsewhere, Shields said she was “sick to my stomach” over the news, but after some time, she changed her tune and encouraged her daughter to use the platform for good.

“I said, ‘Look, don’t be a [mess] up. You know? Be the one, the voice of reason, and if you’re gonna parlay this’ — I mean it’s Bravo and Peacock, she wants to be in broadcast journalism, and she also likes being on camera — so I said, ‘See if you can translate that into another opportunity, and it’s a business choice you’re making,” she said.

Will Bravo Viewers See Brooke Shields In The Upcoming Season Of ‘Next Gen NYC’?

Despite her worries, Shields will make a few appearances on the show throughout the season. During her conversation with Entertainment Weekly, Shields said that she filmed a little bit for the series to support her daughter.

“I said, ‘Look, I will do one, maybe two episodes for you, but nobody’s putting any words into my mouth, and I don’t want them to let you put any words into your mouth, and I don’t want you to try to morph into somebody with bad behavior just because it’s going to create ratings,’” Shields said.

Shields went on to say that she also encouraged her daughter to showcase a different version of herself on camera. “And I said, ‘Be the girl holding back the hair for the person throwing up. Don’t be the thrower-upper.’ And she was very grounded in it, and I’m very proud of her because she is using it,” she said.

‘Next Gen NYC’ Will Return To Bravo In June 2026

Season 2 of “Next Gen NYC” will return to Bravo in June 2026. In addition to Henchy, Bravo viewers will be introduced to fellow newbies Liam Obergfoll and Kendall White.

Ariana Biermann, Riley Burruss, Emira D’Spain, Brooks Marks, Ava Dash, Gia Giudice, Georgia McCann, Charlie Cakkour, Shai Fruchter, and Hudson McLeroy are all returning to the series.

According to the show’s synopsis, season 2 is “anything but chill.” It also read: “The pace is faster, the hustle is louder, and for this New York City crew, life in the city that never sleeps is a full-on reality check. Everyone’s trying to build a life that feels authentic – but also aesthetic.”

What Other Shows Are Slated To Return To Bravo This Summer?

Bravo viewers are in for a treat this summer, as season 20 of “The Real Housewives of Orange County” is scheduled to return, featuring Tamra Judge, Heather Dubrow, and OG of the OC Vicki Gunvalson.

“… I miss filming. I missed my girls. I missed the joy of being an Orange County Housewife,” Gunvalson said in a previous interview, according to The Blast.

Also, NeNe Leakes will make her grand return to Bravo in August when “The Real Housewives: Ultimate Girls Trip” airs in honor of the franchise’s 20th anniversary.