The regular truth of the matter is that box office success determines how the media cookie crumbles. Indeed, you can tap into profound emotional truths, land yourself a lead who puts on the performance of a lifetime, and make it through your runtime with minimal plot holes, but first priority will always go to the filmmakers who get more butts in seats, even if they only make loud slop.

This is precisely why Den of Thieves 2: Pantera — due in theaters on Jan. 10 — exists; because 2018’s Den of Thieves managed to snag $80.5 million at the box office on a $30 million budget in spite of its artistic dearth. The worst part? Viewers at home still haven’t wised up to its stench all these years later.

Per FlixPatrol, Den of Thieves has cemented itself as the third most watched film on the United States’ Max charts at the time of writing, falling short of a first-place Juror #2, the latest and perhaps last film from Hollywood legend Clint Eastwood, which was hardly given any chance in theaters despite being one of the best films of 2024.

Den of Thieves stars dad-movie superstar Gerard Butler as Nick O’Brien, an alcoholic officer with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department who’s dead set on taking down a gang of thieves led by Ray Merrimen (Pablo Schreiber), an ex-Marine whose crew is planning a heist on the Federal Reserve Bank in downtown Los Angeles. Bouncing between them is Donnie (O’Shea Jackson Jr.), a member of Merrimen’s crew that Nick has the drop on.

The two biggest faults of Den of Thieves is how it doubles down on toxic impulses that shouldn’t be affirmed, and doesn’t seem understand what it’s doing half the time. The film wastes a fair chunk of its frankly unacceptable length (two hours and 20 minutes) exploring the lives of characters that have little to no weight in the film’s story, while the story itself is nothing more than complex info drops about the incoming heist’s logistics.

In others words, Den of Thieves exists to show off how well director-writer Christian Gudegast can intellectualize the ins and outs of the Federal Reserve Bank, all while the characters crack tasteless jokes and abuse each other, only for the film to try and win back our sympathies by showing us Nick’s daughters, who also have nothing to do with the story.

It’s shockingly inept filmmaking, but for some reason, audiences love a bunch of men who appeal to some perverted power fantasy that always stems from a place of hurt rather than a place of healing. And really, pandering to that crowd might be the film’s worst sin. In a world where art has always been one of our greatest tools in fostering empathic literacy, is it not a sickening tragedy when a film insists upon these maladaptive, mean-spirited vices as facts of life to be proudly owned?

If you want to see a truly beautiful example of markedly masculine filmmaking, queue up The Iron Claw, also on Max, and let Sean Durkin paint you a portrait of brotherly love that will leave you sobbing.

For those in the know, season 2 of The Last of Us is not a cause for celebration. Many fans are excited to see the return of their favorite characters, but video game players know to approach this next phase in the HBO series with caution.

The reason for this is evident when watching the new teaser for the sophomore season. As soon as the trailer starts, fans are wrestled back to the scene of Joel and Ellie’s worst moment. Sirens screech throughout a darkly lit hospital hallway — the same one Joel shot his way through to rescue Ellie from the Fireflies deadly plan. This time when fans see the location, it’s through the perspective of a new character — Abby. Kaitlyn Dever dons the character’s iconic braid as she makes her way through the hallway, lit with a scathing red color scheme. The effect is unsettling, as many fans noted when taking to social media.

Fans are right to have some hesitance. Even for those who have not played the games, The Last of Us was never easy viewing. Taking place in a post-apocalyptic world where a deadly infection has turned people into fungus-ridden zombies, The Last of Us is an emotional story filled with themes of grief, loss, and redemption. To call the series bleak would be an understatement. The happiest episode is the only slightly tangential episode following the love story between Joel’s allies, Bill and Frank which earned Nick Offerman an Independent Spirit Award in 2024. The two experience what people even in the real world rarely get to have: a happy ending. This happy ending consists of them growing old together and eventually electing to die by suicide.

Such is the world of The Last of Us, and Bill and Frank’s ending gives context to why fans are so anxious going into season 2. With a new antagonist introduced in the aftermath of Joel’s bloodbath, the second season aims to be even more fraught with emotional trauma than the first.

The Last of Us trailer also presents happier times

While The Last of Us season 2 trailer is punctuated with eery music and a dramatic voice-over, there are some things to look forward to. Season 2 will introduce Ellie’s love interest, Dina, who many fans theorized appeared in the first season in a younger version. The trailer shows a brief shot of Ellie dancing with the new character. Portrayed by Isabela Merced, Dina is the one source of light in Ellie’s life. As can be expected, Ellie isn’t fooled by Joel’s lie about the Firefly camp last season and things have deteriorated between them.

Dina’s arrival signals a new beginning for Ellie, who so rarely has experienced love without tragedy. Merced notably portrayed Kay in Alien: Romulus, as well as starred in Sony’s ill-fated Madame Web film. Her role in The Last of Us will likely yield better results than the Spider-Man adjacent film. Viewers can look forward to the new season of The Last of Us when it premieres on Max in April.

Natasha Rothwell is just weeks away from reappearing on screens, but one person who certainly isn’t on her The White Lotus hotel guest list is president-elect Donald Trump. 

The actress — who will reprise her role as luxury hotel masseuse Belinda in the upcoming third season of the HBO series — diverted from the zenness of her character to unleash her thoughts on Trump in an X post. “You are trash,” she wrote of the soon-to-be president on Jan. 3, offering a potentially succinct assessment that maybe even The White Lotus creator Mike White couldn’t have penned. 

For those who’ve followed the actress — whose credits also include Insecure, Wonka and Sonic The Hedgehog — this message might feel familiar. That’s because, upon Trump’s first presidential victory back in 2016 (which somehow feels like simpler times), Rothwell vowed to tweet every day that the then-president was trash, a ritual which she continued until his defeat by Joe Biden in 2020. “For the last four years, every day I tweeted that Trump was trash,” Rothwell explained of her X activity upon Biden’s victory.

“Not just because it was true, but because it served as a daily reminder that what we were living through wasn’t normal or okay.” Since then, Rothwell’s thoughts on Trump remained somewhat dormant (save for her revelling in his Twitter ban in 2021), but his stunning defeat of Kamala Harris in November might just signal the reawakening of Rothwell’s daily Trump-trash talk. In fact, a quick internet sleuthing reveals that the actress actually restarted her “you are trash” routine back in October, with many observers welcoming the return of her concise messages. 

While there’s clearly no invite for Trump upon her return to The White Lotus, Rothwell has been more welcoming of her show’s third season in the lead up to its February premiere. Recently speaking to Entertainment Weekly, Rothwell said her character — who will make the trip to the season three location of Thailand alongside the broader ensemble — will have her “eyes opened in new ways” throughout the course of the new installment. 

While she is still an employee of the hotel, Belinda will stay in the Thailand resort as a guest, as part of “an exchange program to learn more about the wellness programs that the Thailand White Lotus offers,” Rothwell explained. She will be joined by a host of extremely rich and extremely annoying guests, who will be played by the likes of Parker Posey, Leslie Bibb, Carrie Coon and Jason Isaacs, among others. For her part, K-Pop star Lalisa Manobal will take the reins from Murray Bartlett and Sabrina Impacciatore as season three’s hotel manager, much to the delight of her fans. 

Season one of the anthology series was set in Hawaii and took a satirical look at white privilege, while season two jetted off to Italy for an examination of sexual power dynamics. The upcoming, Asia-set installment, according to White, will offer a more “satirical and funny look at death and eastern religion and spirituality.”

Rothwell is only the second White Lotus castmate to reprise her role, with Jennifer Coolidge playing her iconic character of Tanya in the first two installments before meeting her tragic (and totally fitting) demise. While Belinda will undoubtedly endure the petty dramas of rich white folks in season three, thankfully none of them will be a reality star-turned-president.

Here’s the thing about modern moviegoing: everyone likes to complain that no good movies are being made anymore, when in reality fantastic films come out every other day that simply require a bit of effort to access.

But it’s still nevertheless depressing that these fantastic films aren’t more broadly embraced by movie theaters, and end up buried for committing no more heinous a crime than not featuring the Minions or satisfying the nostalgic ego of its audiences. Juror #2 was found guilty of these charges by the Warner Bros. overlords, and Max viewers are now picking up the forced slack in hopes of giving Clint Eastwood’s potential swansong the attention it deserves.

Per FlixPatrol, Juror #2 continues to enjoy itself at the top of the United States’ Max film charts at the time of writing, utilizing its robust drama to keep the likes of a second-place Beetlejuice Beetlejuice and a third-place Joker: Folie à Deux at bay.

Directed and produced by Clint Eastwood, Juror #2 stars Nicholas Hoult as Justin Kemp, a man who regrettably gets called up for jury duty in the middle of his wife’s high-risk pregnancy. The case is one of James Sythe, who’s on trial for the alleged murder of his girlfriend Kendall Carter after a none-too-pleasant fight at a local bar. This bar, being the one that Justin drove home from the night of the murder, and the night of that murder being one where Justin accidentally hit a deer that might not have been a deer. Quel scandale!

To speak of Juror #2 is to accept the fact that you will never unpack it in full. There’s nothing glamorous or indulgent about Eastwood’s direction; every decision he makes and every performance he gets out of his top-notch cast is entirely in service to the most sobering possible reflection on the American justice system.

And within that, the nonagenarian screen legend strikes a devastatingly humanist chord with all the dilemmas faced by the likes of Justin, his peers, his superiors, and the lives that are in his hands. The film ostensibly declares that justice isn’t real, but also more accurately suggests that justice is often so ugly that calling it as such fills us with existential dread. We are all, after all, just trying to do the right thing while staving off our own fundamentally restless conscience, as well as that of a public who must consume tragedy and its gerrymandered resolution to distract from their own emptiness.

To put it simply, Juror #2 is not an easy watch, and unfortunately, easy watches are what’s “in” right now. Indeed, it’s perhaps no wonder that Eastwood’s latest was unceremoniously kicked to the curb when we’re living in the advent of streaming films designed to be understood while you’re looking at your phone. And yet, Eastwood seems to believe that we can all rise to the occasion, and that counts for something.

Remember last year when the 96th Academy Awards were in full swing and everyone was furious about who didn’t get nominated (see: Margot Robbie and Greta Lee for Best Actress, Charles Melton for Best Supporting Actor, Leonardo DiCaprio for Best Actor, and so on and so forth)? Indeed, it’s almost like there’s only so many nomination spots available, and so great artists and films will ultimately have to miss the cut for the sake of other great artists and films.

In any case, the single most painful example of this unavoidable tragedy is The Iron Claw, the Sean Durkin-masterminded, A24-distributed biopic that would have granted Zac Efron a rightfully-deserved Best Actor win in a more just world. For now, though, it’s settling for come hearty streaming success.

Per FlixPatrol, The Iron Claw is clawing its way up the Max charts in the United States at the time of writing, settling itself in at seventh place while the likes of Megamind (eighth place), Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (third place), and The Hangover (10th place) offer up some thoroughly idiosyncratic company for this pulverizingly devastating sports drama.

The Iron Claw stars Zac Efron, Jeremy Allen White, Harris Dickinson, and Stanley Simons as Kevin, Kerry, David, and Mike Von Erich; four brothers and the son of wrestling legend Fritz Von Erich, whose failure to secure the NWA Worlds Heavyweight Championship during his career has culminated in overbearing pressure on his sons to accomplish what he couldn’t. Desperate to win their father’s love, the boys step into the ring as the next generation of the Von Erich dynasty, having no way of anticipating the influx of tragedy that will soon descend upon them.

One may declare that the special sauce of The Iron Claw lies quite simply in its no-holds-barred robustness towards its artistic fundamentals. They would be mostly correct in doing so; the directing, writing, and acting are all masterful, and the added touch of having the actors perform the wrestling stunts themselves adds a sharp injection of kinetic realism that supplements the film’s honesty tenfold.

That said, all the creative competence in the world will only take you so far without a good story, but The Iron Claw soars in that department as well. Armed with the wisdom to sand down historical accuracy for the sake of building its emotional core, The Iron Claw paints one of the most sobering portraits of masculinity ever put to screen, rooting all of these brothers in the purest, most natural love before teeing them up against an apathetic world that no one prepared them for.

Those of you already familiar with the history of the Von Erichs know better than to expect a happy ending here, but we can’t underestimate the necessity of such sad stories. Honest emotional ruin plays a key role in our duty of accessing the breadth of our humanity, and few films from the last year invoke such a thing like The Iron Claw does. Have two boxes of tissues ready; one for the film as a whole, and one specifically for the afterlife scene.

It’s not always easy to discern why certain films assimilate into the pulse of a culture, nor is it much fun to argue why they shouldn’t be there. Indeed, whether it’s The Godfather, The Silence of the Lambs, or more timely classics like Home Alone and Elf, some movies are simply here to stay, so we might as well get comfortable with examining them year in and year out.

In the case of the latter, it’s been examined on streaming for quite some time now, and today is no exception. Per FlixPatrol, Elf is currently the third most-viewed film on the United States’ Max film rankings at the time of writing, dancing jolly circles around the likes of a sixth-place The Goonies (which houses the likes of now-household names like Sean Astin, Josh Brolin, and Ke Huy Quan), and inspirational Christopher Reeve documentary Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story (seventh place).

Elf stars Will Ferrell as Buddy, a human who was raised in the North Pole as an elf, and who one day discovers that he is not, in fact, an elf. This revelation causes him to set off on a journey to New York City in search of his biological father, who he’s never met. The industrial indifference of the Big Apple is, of course, a far cry from the sugarplum optimism endemic to the North Pole, but with Buddy sprinkling his magic everywhere he steps, he just might inject a never-before-seen Christmas spirit into the heart of the city.

For the remaining few out there who have yet to watch Elf for the first time, it may be hard to grasp how this film has cemented itself into the public consciousness the way it has. It’s not structurally sound on any level, there’s not much in the way of a plot, characterization is mostly measured by a willingness to goof off, and the comedic beats ride a largely inconsistent wave that all but minimizes its artistic identity.

And yet, Ferrell is as beloved in this role today as he was back in 2003, so what’s the special sauce of Elf that has prevented it from being lumped together with the likes of Harold and the Purple Crayon (which boasts the same wacky, disjointed man-child antics of Elf, right down to including Zooey Deschanel in the proceedings)?

Well, Ferrell (together with the film’s script) demonstrates an unwavering commitment to Buddy’s outlook on life, one defined by unfettered joy and love that we so often forsake in hopes of becoming more successful in a cold, hard, numbers-driven rat race. We don’t necessarily laugh at Elf‘s jokes because they’re funny, we laugh because Buddy’s sincerity is just that charming, and we all secretly wish we were capable of living that way.

And really, that collective wish has almost single-handedly defined this millennium. Buddy’s optimism was surely a breath of fresh air for a newly post-9/11 America, and with an abundance of cultural and international tensions dominating the headlines of today, it’s no wonder Buddy’s reckless love remains a welcome sight all these years later.

If you’ve spent any time on the internet in the last couple of years, you may have heard about this niche, barely spoken-about term called “superhero fatigue,” wherein moviegoers of all persuasions claim to be fed up with the swath of comic book adaptations that have been finding their way to the big screen.

Kraven the Hunter‘s already-doomed theatrical run is the latest exhibit, but the loudest example in the last while is Joker: Folie à Deux, Todd Phillips’ long-awaited sequel to his Oscar-nominated psychological thriller based on the iconic DC Comics villain. Everyone hated it, and enough people decided that preemptively to ensure its failure at the box office.

But now that it’s on streaming, everyone can take advantage of a less-consequential viewing experience to make an informed opinion, and that’s precisely what’s happening now. Per FlixPatrol, Joker: Folie à Deux is flying high at the top of the Max film charts in the United States at the time of writing, having dislodged Tim Burton’s box office beast of a legacy sequel Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, now enjoying the show from second place.

Joker: Folie à Deux sees Joaquin Phoenix reprise his role as Arthur Fleck, a clown-turned-murderer-turned-martyr who now finds himself as an inmate of Arkham State Hospital. There, he meets and falls in love with one Lee Quinzel (Lady Gaga) and stands trial for his crimes. Along the way, he finds himself on a path towards self-reevaluation.

An abundance of the hatred received by Folie à Deux is rooted in the fact that it was not the movie that everyone was expecting it to be. But, really, doesn’t that say a lot about the state of our viewing habits? That we’re evaluating films based on our expectations or how well it serves our egos rather than seeing it for what it actually is?

As for what Folie à Deux is, it’s an ungentlemanly middle finger to everybody who didn’t understand what its predecessor stood for; an unsettling takedown of the cynicism and apathy that so much of the world insists on operating from, and the tragedy inherent to assimilating into it. We’re not meant to root for Arthur; we’re meant to root against his descent into that darkness.

Folie à Deux is about the same thing as Joker, except it goes in the opposite direction. Throughout the film, Arthur slowly comes to realize that he doesn’t actually want to embody apathy, and remembers the love that he once insisted upon inhabiting. By the end of the film, he fully rejects the Joker persona and commits to sincerity once more, and what’s his reward? Real-life audiences hate him, critics hate him, diegetic cultists hate him, and he’s also murdered for it.

Indeed, Folie à Deux sought to call attention to how emotionally dangerous it’s become to operate from a place of radical love, and by evaluating and subsequently bashing the film on account of it not serving our expectations, we are complicit in the very apathy that Joker and Folie à Deux tried so hard to warn us about.

Look, I get it; it’s easy to write off legacy sequels as complete and utter cash grabs operating at a cinematic deficit for the sake of lining the pockets of executives and egos of fandoms. This emotion, however, could most aptly be characterized as resignation, and that’s not a great approach to any facet of life.

So, when confronted with a film like Beetlejuice Beetlejuice — perhaps the definitive legacy sequel of the year thanks to the 36 year gap between it and the original film — we need to at least bring our most sincere eye to the film, if not to spot its ostensible purpose for existence, then to try and understand what the franchise could do better going forward. And now, you don’t even need to buy a movie ticket to do so.

Per FlixPatrol, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice has debuted as the top film on Max in the United States at the time of writing, outclassing the long-incumbent Will Ferrell classic Elf (second place) and a sixth place The Goonies, a beloved 80s film that has yet to be hit by the legacy sequel hammer, despite the internet’s best efforts.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice sees Winona Ryder reprise her role as Lydia Deetz, who now finds herself navigating adulthood as a mother to her daughter Astrid (Jenna Ortega) and as the host of Ghost House, a television program where she interviews people who claim to have encountered spirits in their homes. The death of Lydia’s father brings the family back to Winter River, where they find themselves drawn into the series of gonzo afterlife shenanigans that Lydia will, unfortunately, need the help of Betelgeuse (Michael Keaton) to resolve.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice made $451 million against a reported $100 million budget, so it was certainly a case of Mission Accomplished from Warner Bros.’ point of view. As a viewing experience, however, it’s a different story; with an almost pathological adherence to disjointedness coupled with its overflowing bucket of nostalgic assets, the film is a completely alienating outing for anyone who hasn’t already dedicated part of their identity to Tim Burton.

Except, Burton knows that. Burton knows that this audience won’t care about the film’s creative boons so long as they get to see the things that they like about Beetlejuice; after all, the reason the original film has persisted the way it has had nothing to do with its genuinely inventive themes or storytelling, but because of its fatefully co-opted vibe that’s so-often used by fans to ensure others how strange and unusual they are.

With this in mind, pay attention to how Burton characterizes Lydia, Betelgeuse, and Catherine O’Hara’s Delia. Lydia loses her inner identity following the death of her ex-husband, and her arc is centered around learning to let go of the things she used to decorate her outer identity in order to make up for that. Delia uses the death of her own husband as the fuel for yet another insincere artistic endeavor that leaves her as empty — if not more so — than she was before.

And then Betelgeuse, the eponymous wildcard, is a character who has always, deliberately been written in a way where he’s entertaining without being interesting (i.e. he has no development as a character). Meanwhile, his film of origin, Beetlejuice, is both entertaining and interesting, but no one seems to love it for how interesting it is, instead attaching to how entertaining it is. Oh, Burton, you son of a gun.

Few mediums can claim to be as acquainted with speculative fiction as comic books. Whether it’s superheroes, horror, fantasy, sci-fi, or some absurdist urban combination of the four, the most delightfully odd and curious tales ever told are almost always residents of the pulp.

It’s only natural, then, that comic books have served as the basis for so many cinematic outings; what better way to guarantee some gonzo fun than by drawing from a medium that specializes in it? Mind you, that landing doesn’t always get stuck, but that’s certainly not the case for Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, the Edgar Wright-helmed action comedy based on the Canadian graphic novel series of the same name, which is currently utilizing its infectious whimsy to capture the hearts of Max viewers all over again.

Per FlixPatrol, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is — perhaps to the chagrin of the protagonist — the seventh most-watched movie on Max’s worldwide film charts. Blocking its path to freeing itself from such an unlucky number is the sixth-place Twisters, the Glen Powell-led 2024 summer blockbuster that fell about as short of its predecessor as any legacy sequel could.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World stars Michael Cera as the titular Scott Pilgrim, an unemployed bassist whose adorkable demeanor hides a pretty severe emotional immaturity. He meets new-girl-in-town Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and winds up falling hard, but he soon finds that he has to defeat her seven evil exes if the two of them are going to date. Armed with his fists, intuition, and an ever-so-slightly budding sense of self-respect, Scott prepares to lay the smackdown on Ramona’s heartbreak pantheon.

The film quite famously plays host to one of the most mouth-watering casts in recent memory; alongside Cera and Winstead are the likes of Kieran Culkin, Anna Kendrick, Brie Larson, Aubrey Plaza, Chris Evans, Mae Whitman, Jason Schwartzman, and a not-oft-cited Bill Hader as the film’s narrator.

And yes, that call sheet is every bit as indicative of the overall merit of the film itself. While it makes a few too many narrative sacrifices in its jump from comic to screen — resulting in a thesis on love, relationships, and personal growth that could have been much less watered-down — the cinematic joy inherent to every frame is hard to turn one’s nose down at.

Indeed, the film’s use of editing and special effects work effortlessly in tandem with each other, giving the film the briskness of reading a comic book while taking every opportunity to play with highly-stylized dream sequences and even more highly-stylized realities. As a technical tickling of the senses, Scott Pilgrim is one of the best around, and when paired with a story that’s human enough to engage a viewer but not so dense as to distract from its mandate of fun, its cult status becomes no great mystery.

In this way, it makes for the ultimate comfort watch, particularly if you happen to be scrolling Max with your friends and need something to watch alongside your pizza, Dr. Pepper, and whatever other vices you have on hand.

Speaking of a remake that absolutely no one in the world asked for, and whose every news is a one-way irrevocable free ticket to controversy and outrage on social media, it seems that no matter how Warner Bros. approaches this completely unnecessary, unasked-for, obvious cash-grab attempt at bringing Harry Potter to live-action again, Potterheads on social media go after it with pitchforks raised and wands a-blazing.

It was reported today that the production team responsible for the HBO series is already looking at British actor Paapa Essiedu to portray Professor Snape in this new remake. Now, before you cast “incendio” to deservedly burn this entire undertaking to the ground before it even has a chance to hop onto Platform 9 3/4, note that this decision is not final. In fact, its very announcement could be a tactic the company employs to test the waters and ensure that they get the right person for what could arguably be one of the top three most important roles in Harry Potter.

Still, if that was the intention, the internet is answering with a resounding “NO” in response. Not only that, the report has once again got people thinking if we even need another Harry Potter adaptation when the original movies were so well-received. Nothing hammers that sentiment home so poignantly as thinking about Alan Rickman and his immortalized role as Severus Snape, the Half-Blood Prince, and the man who sacrificed everything in the name of love. Rickman’s tragic passing in 2016 makes rewatching those last Harry Potter movies almost unbearable. I mean, who doesn’t shed a tear (or a stream) when they watch The Prince’s Tale sequence from The Deathly Hallows?

And so, from decrying this proposed actor because he doesn’t fit the role to even mentioning their perfect candidate, mourning for Alan Rickman, and anything in between, here are some of the things Potterheads had to say about this new show on social media.

Now that the Harry Potter remake is all but inevitable, people seem to think Adam Driver is the perfect choice to portray him, even despite the obvious age difference.

As ever, some people have looked at the casting news and drawn the entirely presumptuous conclusion that it has to do with DEI practices in Hollywood, little realizing that Rickman himself would probably have rejoiced to see Snape portrayed by a person of color.

Again, it doesn’t matter who portrays the part. No actor would want to step under Alan Rickman’s long shadow, especially now that he’s no longer with us. The same goes for Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) and Sir Michael Gambon (Dumbledore), who passed away in 2022 and 2023, respectively.

As if the job of matching his acting chops wasn’t hard enough, the thespian cast will have to contend with the nostalgia surrounding Snape and Rickman, too.

Of course, trust Warner Bros. to take the completely simple-minded resolution to this problem and just bring on someone else. When do you think the company is going to realize that people simply don’t want another re-telling of Harry Potter, especially now that controversy dogs the franchise’s footsteps thanks to J.K. Rowling? Then again, leaving well enough alone has never been Hollywood’s strong suit.

Warner Bros. Discover has a lot of new HBO content coming to Max in the next few years, and this includes some of their biggest shows like Euphoria, The White Lotus, and the upcoming Harry Potter reboot TV series. Now we have some insight on when they will arrive.

Wells Fargo hosted a tech and media conference on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2024, in which Warner Bros. Discovery global streaming chief JB Perrette revealed the timeline for many of the company’s upcoming series.

The biggest news from his words shared by Variety was that Euphoria season 3 will be released during 2026, not 2025 as some expected. So fans of the series waiting for more with have to sit tight a little longer. Similarly, the upcoming Harry Potter show that was initially set to land in 2026 is now being targeted for 2027. 

“As you look at ’26 and into ’27, you begin a 10-year journey on the Harry Potter series, which we’re super excited about. And I’d argue, may be the biggest event by the time we get to that series.”

While it might be disappointing, it’s not all that surprising that the show has been pushed back, since it still appears to be in the casting phase, so there’s a lot of work to do before it’s actually ready to be filmed.

For the series that are closer to their arrival, we now know that The White Lotus season 3 will be here in February of 2025, The Last of Us season 2 is going to launch in Spring, and later in the upcoming year, the Game of Thrones spin-off A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms will be here. That means even though Euphoria won’t be here in 2025, there’s no shortage of popular shows to sink your teeth into.

The last season of Euphoria was released in January of 2022 and continued the show’s debut run of success. It also concluded on a cliffhanger for fans so naturally many have been dying to get more of the addictive story. However, they’ll have to wait for 2026.

Warner Bros. continues to stack its streaming service Max with these HBO series, making it one of the best options on the market right now. However, there is bad news, and that’s the fact subscription prices will be rising in the future.

While Max is currently priced starting at $16.99 without ads, and $9.99 with, Perrette revealed during the conference that these prices will be increased in the future. No details were shared regarding how much or when it’s happening. Just that it’s currently in the works.

Hopefully, these increases don’t get out of hand before fans finally get to see the shows they’ve been waiting for, but sadly there’s just no way of knowing. In the meantime, if you’d like to refresh your mind on what went down in Euphoria so far, the show’s first two seasons are available to stream on Max now.

Expect more details about all of these upcoming shows to be shared when we enter 2025.

HBO’s recent announcement about its Harry Potter TV reboot is all the proof you need about capitalism’s blatant disregard for the marginalized.

As a result, fans are left shaking their heads in frustration. While the idea of revisiting the magical world of Hogwarts in a long-form series might sound like a dream come true, there’s a major issue casting a shadow over the excitement: J.K. Rowling’s involvement. And surprise surprise, money beat magic in this round. 

The Controversy

J.K Rowling, once celebrated as the creative mind behind one of the most beloved franchises in modern history, has become a divisive figure due to her controversial views on transgender rights. Her tweets and essays on gender identity, which she frames as advocating for women’s rights, have been widely criticized as blatantly transphobic. Major fan communities like MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron have severed ties with her, and even Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson have spoken out in support of trans rights, making their stances crystal clear.

Now, under Warner Bros. Discovery’s new leadership, Rowling is stepping back into the spotlight, not just as the creator of the Harry Potter universe but as a key figure in this reboot. HBO’s chief, Casey Bloys, confirmed Rowling is “very, very involved” in the show’s development, including in the selection process for the writer and director. He also downplayed concerns, stating that her past statements haven’t impacted casting or hiring decisions. However, it’s a slap in the faces of trans individuals and allies that Rowling’s comments are seen as statements of the past, and therefore unimportant to present decision-making. When, in fact, she continues to maintain her anti-trans rhetoric to this very day.

The fans are simply NOT happy

Let’s be real — Rowling’s involvement isn’t just a minor concern for fans. For many, it’s a dealbreaker. Social media erupted after HBO’s announcement, with fans criticizing the network’s decision to align so closely with someone whose views they find harmful. One X user summed up the sentiment perfectly:  “This is incredibly disappointing on the part of HBO. J.K. Rowling’s views actively target members of the LGBTQ community. It’s an evil, hateful ‘personal view,’ and it’s disgusting that a major corporation would defend that.”

Another commented, “What a lengthy way for HBO to say they don’t give a sh-t about trans people,” and the notion that “HBO stands by greed and money” is also making the rounds.

The backlash isn’t just about Rowling’s views — it’s also about the message HBO is sending by prioritizing her involvement. Fans have pointed out that, just a few years ago, such statements might have gotten someone in Hollywood blacklisted. But now, HBO is comfortable not only ignoring the controversy, but doubling down by saying the series will “benefit” from her input. For many who grew up with Harry Potter, this decision feels like a betrayal. 

The books and movies have always carried themes of love, acceptance, and standing up to injustice. Rowling’s statements, which some interpret as denying the existence and validity of transgender individuals, feel fundamentally at odds with those values.

The question for fans becomes: Can you separate the art from the artist? For many, the answer is “no.”  As such, some fans have pledged to boycott the reboot, unwilling to support a project so closely tied to Rowling. The frustration is palpable, with some pointing out that this controversy could have been avoided by creating something original within the Wizarding World — without Rowling’s direct involvement. HBO’s decision might keep the cash flowing, but it has clearly left a sour taste in the mouths of many fans.