hollywood

In 1953 Hollywood filmed a blockbuster in front of US nuclear tests. It was the most radioactive movie in history, literally

by

Year 1953, during a nuclear test in the Nevada desert, several Las Vegas hotels offered their guests privileged views of the mushroom cloud at dawn as if it were a tourist attraction at Disneyland, with cocktails included and terraces full of spectators. The scene, which is difficult to imagine today, reflected the extent to which certain risks were perceived very differently in the midst of the nuclear age. Filming in the Cold War. In the mid-50s, The Conqueror It was born as a historical blockbuster that from the beginning involved decisions that were difficult to justify, such as choosing John Wayne to play Genghis Khan himself under the production of Howard Hughes. Filming moved to locations in Utah, an area that offered spectacular landscapes but was, at the time, close to areas where the United States was filming atmospheric nuclear tests. The context was not a secret, but its risks were not fully understood either, since public and scientific perception of radiation was much more limited than today. That combination of cinematic ambition and geopolitical moment left a scenario that, seen with perspective, is much more disturbing than what it seemed like then. The real environment. This perfectly documented that nuclear testing in the Nevada desert generated radioactive fallout that moved to populated areas, subsequently affecting known communities as “downwinders”. It is also proven that the filming team worked in one of those regions, and that part of the surrounding material was transferred to other sets, potentially expanding exposure. This context is neither a theory nor a subsequent reconstruction, but a historical fact recognized by investigations and official organizations that have studied the consequences of those tests. The passage of time and the uncomfortable statistics. What happened? That, over the years, a significant part of the cast and production team developed cancerincluding figures such as John Wayne himself (who died of the disease in 1979), Susan Hayward and Dick Powell. The most cited figure that gives an idea of ​​the possible impact speaks of more than 90 cases among about 220 people linked to the production, a fact that has fueled the fame of the filming as one of the most disturbing and cursed in the history of Hollywood. Even so, we must remember that this number comes from of informative accounts and not from controlled epidemiological studies, which requires treating it with some caution despite its impact. What is proven and what is not. The line between facts and story is key in history. It’s proven that there was exposure to a potentially contaminated environment and that several team members developed serious illnesses over time. What is not proven is a direct causal relationship between filming and these cancers, since factors such as personal habits (including smoking) and the lack of comparable clinical data, facts or causalities may enter, making any definitive conclusion difficult. Therefore, the case remains an ambiguous terrain: perfectly plausible in its approach, but not scientifically confirmed. From failure to modern myth. Upon its release, the film was received quite coldly and criticalremaining in the popular imagination as another failure within the industry. However, as the decades passed, his memory has changed completely, transforming into a story that combines Hollywood, Cold War and invisible risk. What at the time was simply a bad creative and logistical decision ended up being reinterpreted as an episode from the world of celluloid. loaded with symbolism about the limits of knowledge and (i)responsibility. The context changes everything. Because the story of The Conqueror lies not only in what happened during filming, but in how that same filming fits within an era in which exposure to nuclear risks formed part of the everyday landscape. There is no doubt, what seemed acceptable then is today perceived as true nonsense, and this radical change of perspective is what turns the case into something more than a movie anecdote. It wasn’t just a problematic shoot, but an example of how seemingly normal decisions can take on a completely different meaning. with the passage of time. Image | RKO In Xataka | The day a man dared to go further than anyone else: a real fight with Bruce Lee where there were no limits In Xataka | One of the most iconic scenes from ‘A Clockwork Orange’ had an infallible trick: the pain you saw in the scene was not fiction

TikTok’s new hobby is to enter one of the most guarded buildings in Hollywood by surprise: Scientology

by

The Church of Scientology building in Hollywood has been generating curiosity, controversy and mistrust in equal parts for decades. But in recent days, a group of content creators have found a peculiar way to interact with it: run inhold on as long as they can and leave through the emergency door before the staff escorts them there. The creation of traditional hooligan content, but in this case it allows you to take a morbid look inside buildings that jealously guard their secrets. Like Sonic, but faster. in culture gamera speedrun It consists of completing a video game in the shortest time possible, often exploiting unconventional routes and small system glitches to break records. To apply that logic to real life, there are a few kids who have chosen the Hollywood headquarters of the Church of Scientology as their setting, one of the most photographed and least known buildings in the neighborhood. The result: videos where the participants They burst through the front doorthey run through the hallways as much as the staff allows and end up being escorted to the exit. Nobody has gotten very far. Perverting the rules. The curious thing is that Scientology wants you to enter their buildings. Their headquarters are designed to attract curious visitors, with open tours and helpful staff. Of course: the organization prefers to do it on its own terms, guided, monitored and with the rhythm set by its recruitment protocol. What it does not tolerate is someone entering without warning, at full speed and with a camera pointing towards rooms with the door completely open. The staff at the Hollywood building has been identifying creators who routinely troll them for some time, and when they see someone who could be a problem, the doors close. That, inevitably, has added an element of play and challenge to the matter. How many people are there watching it. The most viral video of this trend accumulates more than 35 million views in one week. In reality, there are two or three main videos that are redistributed non-stop on different platforms, so in reality it is not so much a cultural or viral movement, as a couple of content creators who have found a key that interests millions of people. An unexpected debate. What the challenge has generated is a more substantial discussion about whether these videos function as a criticism of Scientology. Journalist Yashar Ali, known for his critical coverage of the organization for years, said in X that this type of content “fits perfectly with Scientology’s internal indoctrination, which teaches its members that the outside world is a violent place that wants to sabotage the spread of its teachings.” The speedruns They reinforce the idea that outside critics are hostile and disrespectful, which plays into the narrative that members need to protect themselves from the outside. Content magnet. The Scientology building in Hollywood is not an unknown building for critical content creators. TikTok accumulates years of videos about Scientology: testimonies from former members such as Leah Remini or the former manager Mike Rinderanalysis of their practicesrecordings on public roads of his recruitment methodsmany of them on platforms like TikTok itself. This informative content now coexists with the format speedrunalthough the depth and impact of both, evidently, are very different. Header | mikepmiller

When Sora was released many assumed it was “the death of Hollywood.” Only two years, then Sora no longer exists

by

In February 2024, OpenAI published on X a string of AI-generated videos with his new model, Sora. Although today, after two years of progress, they even feel outdated, at the time the result was convincing enough for the media around the world to start headlines that Hollywood had a very serious problem. Two years later, Sora does not exist. Panic effect. The effect of this presentation with videos was immediate: MIT Technology Review, for example, described them as “impressive“, although warning that they had probably been chosen and were not representative of the output usual. That did not stop the narrative: for weeks, the dominant conversation in the specialized media was that film studios were facing an almost perfect replacement tool: synthetic actors, sets generated in seconds, automated post-production… The Hollywood unions, which they had signed agreements with the studios the previous year after a historic strike they put the issue back on the table. Two bombs. Sora’s story has two moments of media panic, separated by eighteen months. The first arrived in February 2024, with the presentation of the model described above. There was talk that Hollywood had a serious problem, that the almost perfect replacement tool already existed and that the studios were not prepared to face this threat. The second came with the launch of Sora 2 in September 2025with real faces inserted in videos generated by AI and with third-party intellectual property by default, unless the prompts expressly requested otherwise. All of this multiplied the volume and intensity of the alarm in Hollywood and the media. What was said In February 2024, coverage of Sora’s first model mixed amazement and alarm in similar proportions. Fortune commented that OpenAI had moved the generative AI battle directly to Hollywood. NBCNews asked filmmakers if this was the end of Hollywood, and some responded that it wasn’t yet. IndieWire He sensed that Sora could mean the apocalypse of cinema. The cycle of apocalyptic headlines with Sora 2 was much more intense. CNBC declared that the app was challenging Hollywood and causing panic in the film industry. deadline He said Hollywood was raw. LA Times He spoke of a battle that was worsening and a firestorm unleashed in the sector. slatewell, he talked about how AI was about to crush Hollywood as we had known it. What happened then. The panic increased in December 2025, when Disney, the most careful entertainment company in the world with its intellectual property, signed a three-year agreement with OpenAI: investment of 1 billion dollars and access to more than 200 characters from Disney, Marvel, Pixar and ‘Star Wars’ so that Sora users could generate them in their videos. Disney+ would broadcast a curated selection of that content. It was the definitive legitimation, which has only lasted 90 days. OpenAI has closed Sora before a single dollar has changed hands. Property problems. Sora’s problems have not only been financial. The app has accumulated a long list of controversies: deepfakes of deceased public figuresmassive use of copyrighted characters without permission prior, and the appearance of external tools to remove watermarks that identified AI-generated content. In November 2025, CODA (Japanese association representing, among others, Studio Ghibli and Square Enix) sent a formal letter to OpenAI demanding that it stop using its intellectual property to train the model. The families of Robin Williams and George Carlin They publicly asked for it to be blocked generating videos with your images. Moderating generative video content at scale turned out to be much more complex than moderating text or image. The consequences of hype. Analyst Ed Zitron criticized this attitude of the media, stating that they did not cover the launch of Sora but rather they amplified their marketing. Saying that Sora was a real threat to Hollywood was, from the beginning, an extrapolation built on selected demos and clips of a few seconds. Thousands of audiovisual professionals spent months convinced that their industry was about to be replaced by a tool that, according to OpenAI’s own numbers, never found enough users willing to pay $200 a month for it. The hype cycle has real consequences: it inflates expectations that are not met, generates costly defensive decisions, and when the product closes, no one takes critical stock. Sora’s coverage is a textbook case of how uncritical amplification of tech demos can be confused with industry analysis, and the damage that attitude can do. Hollywood is still alive. The closure of Sora does not erase the generative video sector in one fell swoop: runwaywhich rejected an acquisition offer from Meta, currently leads the sector with its Gen-4.5 model, along with I see 3.1 from Google and Chinese models Kling and Seedance. These tools are absorbing the space that OpenAI abandons. Who no one absorbs is Hollywood. The film industry, with all your problems (reorganizations, box office decline, threat of streaming), remains a profitable business built on decades of well-established creation, distribution chains and franchises that no generative model can replicate with a prompt. The question is not whether AI will transform audiovisual production (it is already doing so, in post-production, pre-visualization and marketing content creation) but in what real time frames and under what viable economic models. For now, the market responds that generating photorealistic video on a massive scale is computationally very expensive and that consumer users are not willing to pay what it costs. Disney signing Sora wasn’t evidence that Hollywood was in danger. It was, rather, evidence that big studios want to be in the AI ​​conversation, not outside of it. In Xataka | Seedance’s strategy was to copy first, go viral later and back away later. Until Hollywood said “enough”

Doomsday’ are released at the same time and Hollywood already wants to sell us a new Barbenheimer. But it’s not the same

by

Warner Bros. and Disney are going to release their two big bets of the year (‘Dune: Part Three’ and ‘Avengers: Doomsday‘) on the same date: December 18, 2026. The industry has not seen something like this for years. In fact, we haven’t seen it since the Barbenheimer phenomenon, and the question is whether its effect at the box office can be repeated… when the two films share exactly the same audience. Dunesday, or whatever you want to call it. The two most powerful Hollywood studios, two of the most popular franchises in recent years, a single date. The industry already has a nickname for the event: “Dunesday“. But the fact that both coincide on that date does not respond to an agreed strategy. ‘Dune: Part Three’ arrived first in the pre-Christmas gap. ‘Avengers: Doomsday’ was initially scheduled for May 2025, but postponements derived from the strikes of actors and scriptwriters pushed it to where it is now, from where it is unlikely to move since on websites, networks and others there is a countdown in motion until the inevitable premiere. The Barbenheimer precedent. Summer 2023 was left for the annals thanks to the coincidence of two very different films, ‘Barbie’ and ‘Oppenheimer’, on the same weekend in July. The combined weekend exceeded $300 million in the US alonebecoming the fourth best in historyonly behind the three opening weekends of ‘Avengers: Endgame’, ‘Infinity War’ and ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’. Different audiences, even different motivations for going to the movies, but a curious, almost miraculous real possibility of doing a very rare double program on the same day. Why Dunesday is different. ‘Dune: Part Three’ and ‘Avengers: Doomsday’ don’t work like that. Both target similar viewers: devotees of science fiction and big-budget action, with a predominantly male base (this is important). Significantly or coincidentally, both feature Florence Pugh in their casts, which illustrates the extent to which they are not identical films, but do have their roots in a shared territory of blockbuster Hollywood. The idea of ​​Dunesday, as Variety says, is not to propose two different and complementary plans, but to fill the respectable with a giant dose of similar things. Why don’t they wiggle. That neither film wants to move from that date has a concrete explanation, prior to the invention of Dunesday: there are not many good gaps in that part of the year. Sony releases ‘Jumanji 3’ on December 11, a week early. Further back, the first weekend of December is usually a black hole at the box office (families are shopping, not in theaters), and Thanksgiving is traditionally occupied by Disney’s animated bet, because it is a more family-friendly box office weekend. December 18 is the best date available for two films that need a strong start. What if it works? If the experiment works, the combined box office could be among the best weekends in history. In any case, here we find the usual problem: that July 2023 generated a social phenomenon (costumes, double sessions planned weeks before, debates on networks, friendly rivalry between the actors of the films, who encouraged people to go to both) that was organized outside the industry. “Dunesday” arrives much more in advance and with a slight air of a commercial montage. That’s not going to make the films click, of course, but the truth is that we are dealing with phenomena with nuances that go in opposite directions. In Xataka | The reality of Spanish cinema: ‘Torrente’ has brought more people to theaters this weekend than any film since 2019

Hollywood has been debating for years whether AI can replace real actors. With Val Kilmer the debate turns into practice

by

A year after his death, Val Kilmer will appear in a fiction film without filming a single scene. ‘As Deep as the Grave’ uses generative AI to bring the actor to life with the explicit support of his family and respecting the rules of the actors’ union. It is the first documented case of a Hollywood star being digitally recreated on this scale and with this level of legitimacy. Perhaps in the future this film will be seen as the point at which there was no turning back. As deep as the grave. Val Kilmer died on April 1, 2025, at the age of 65, from pneumonia resulting from the throat cancer that he had been fighting since 2014. This week, almost a year later, the production company First Line Films has announced that the actor will return to the screens in a role that he was never able to film. The film, initially known as ‘Canyon of the Dead’, is a historical drama based on the true story of Ann and Earl Morris, early 20th century archaeologists who documented the culture of the Navajo people in Canyon de Chelly, Arizona. Kilmer was cast five years ago to play Father Fintan, a Native American Catholic priest and spiritualist. The role was designed around him: Kilmer identified with the character’s Native American heritage and with the story’s spiritual link to the American Southwest, where he made his home in New Mexico. “We were ready to film his part. Just, (Val Kilmer) was going through a very, very difficult medical time,” has counted director and screenwriter Coerte Voorhees. Go for AI. The production accumulated six years between filming and forced stops due to the pandemic. When the Voorhees brothers (Coerte directs, John produces) reviewed the material, they saw that Father Fintan’s scenes were essential to the story. Replacing the actor was a possible solution, but they did not have the budget to repeat the shoot. So they chose to generate it artificially. What makes this recreation technically unique is not only the use of images of the actor at different stages of his life, many contributed directly by his family, but the decision to use his real voice, deteriorated by the tracheotomy that Kilmer had to undergo during cancer treatment. Father Fintan suffers from tuberculosis in the fiction, which turns his altered voice into a character trait. The character generated by AI occupies, according to those responsible, a significant part of the final footage. Pioneer Kilmer. The curious thing is that Kilmer was one of the first actors to actively resort to AI to preserve his communication skills. In 2021, while working on the documentary ‘Val’, he collaborated with the startup Sonantic to reconstruct your voice from hours of archival recordings. The company had to develop new algorithms (the available material was ten times less than what they used in other projects) and generated more than 40 different models before selecting the most expressive. That work reached the general public in 2022, when Kilmer appeared in ‘Top Gun: Maverick’, in an appearance that was one of the most talked-about moments of the film. Seal of approval. What distinguishes ‘As Deep as the Grave’ is the consents that support it. The actor’s daughter, Mercedes Kilmer, states that “my father always looked at emerging technologies with optimism, as a tool to expand the possibilities of the story. This spirit is what we honor within this film.” The producers also assure that the film followed the SAG-AFTRA union guidelines and that the actor’s family receives financial compensation. The environment. This news comes amid constant updates on the topic of AI to generate prototypes of real actors or completely new virtual creatures. In recent months, the Xicoia company launched Tilly Norwooda character entirely generated by AI whom she presented as an actress, and which SAG-AFTRA unambiguously condemned, calling her a direct threat to the profession. Here, however, we have the posthumous realization of a job that the actor himself had accepted. But… what will happen when the technology is accessible to productions without family endorsement? How is compliance with SAG-AFTRA standards monitored in independent productions? Can a case like this normalize practices in less scrupulous hands? Header | Variety In Xataka | Seedance’s strategy was to copy first, go viral later and back away later. Until Hollywood said “enough”

Seedance 2.0 has used Hollywood intellectual property to go viral. Hollywood has used the courts

by

ByteDance is not only the company responsible for TikTok: This is a conglomerate that is pushing the development of artificial intelligence in China. And a few weeks ago they presented a Video generation AI which was the most brutal thing we had seen: Seedance 2.0. He perfectly matched any animated character, but also to flesh and blood actors. The West was quick to react, raising its voice and arguing “what happens to my copyrights.” And, in the background, there is something more important: one more chapter in the technological power struggle between China and the rest of the world. In short. Seedance 2.0 is a multimodal AI that allows us to generate video from text, images and other video chips. With a single promptAI takes care of the rest, combining video, audio and visual effects that can be extremely realistic. During the days following the announcement we were able to see a multitude of examples that showed a level of “perfection” not previously seen in other video models. “China is coming”. And the problem is what you are imagining: to recreate a photorealistic Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise, he has evidently been inspired by those in the flesh. Also in the Douyin’s inexhaustible librarythe Chinese TikTok, which allowed him a complex understanding of facial and physical expressions and lighting calculations in a multitude of situations. My colleague Lacort already said it: This is not “China is coming”, but rather “China already does this… and we don’t”. Hollywood picks up the phone. And of course, just like the Japanese industry did when OpenAI blatantly copied his works so that we could create our Ghibli-style dog in ChatGPT, the American film industry was quick to raise its voice. One of the first was Disney, which in the purest Nintendo stylesent a cease and desist letter to ByteDance, accusing the Chinese company to use Disney characters to train your model. Disney is bothered by this threat, but it bothers it more that it doesn’t get a cut like it does from its alliance with OpenAI. Days later it was Motion Picture Association (to which Netflix, Amazon Prime, MGM, Paramount, Sony, Universal, Warner or Disney belong) which sent the same letter of interruption of operations to the Chinese company, accusing it of using its characters and protected material to train the model. And it has had consequences. Putting on the brake. In China, Seedance 2.0 remains operational, where it has achieved a high degree of virality among users, but where it also serves as a tool for creators. ByteDance planned to open global access in mid-March, but due to threats from the Western film industry, have put those fallow plans. “We are taking steps to strengthen current safeguards as we work to prevent unauthorized use of intellectual property and likeness by users” – ByteDance’s response Disney has surely seen this video: Geopolitical pulse. It is not known how or when Seedance 2.0 will be launched outside of China, but in the background there is something very interesting: the use of copyright as a weapon in the technological war. If this has already gone from “the wolf is coming” to “the wolf is already here”, the West is using its available weapons to stop the advance. We have been following the technological and trade war between the United States for years (dragging Europe) and China, and if this movement implies another movement in the current geopolitical game in which the two poles are developing their AI by leaps and bounds. And China is achieving it without having the same resources at hand as the US AI Big Tech. Seedance is estimated to have been built without NVIDIA H100 chips banned for China, some that its rivals do have. Precedents. Is something similar to what happened with DeepSeek in LLMs And now it’s happening with synthetic video: the US has tried hard to leave China out of the conversation, but they are managing to have a strong presence in it. Another example is the reverse engineer ASML machines o what SMIC and Huawei are making progress in building cutting-edge chips. Capacity vs regulation. And another important theme of the ‘Seedance case’ is that it has become an example of the head-on collision between the technical capacity of AI and the regulatory power of the industry. It’s funny that when it became known that the American AI had ‘borrowed’ the entire Internet to train their models, other industries would be more lukewarm than when a Chinese company does it. And at the center of it all is a European Union that is expressing its intention to bring some sanity to progress for the sake of progress, overriding copyrights that can be trampled depending on who does it. In a proposal to “protect creative work with copyright in the age of AI, the European Parliament requires a series of measures so that companies pay for the resources they need for technology training. According to these companies, such a measure would go against progress and smaller AI companies. It would be curious if ByteDance responded to Disney with that same argument. In Xataka | All the big AIs have ignored copyright laws. The amazing thing is that there are still no consequences

China has managed to create an AI that has made Hollywood tremble. Disney has not been amused at all

by

The phenomenon of the month in AI is Seedance 2.0. To date, the most amazing text-to-video creation model and theard a dart at the same industry from Hollywood. So much so that Disney itself has legally warned Bytedance, the Chinese giant behind this model. The notice. Sources of Reuters They claim that Disney has sent a cease and desist letter to Bytedance, accusing the Chinese company of having used company characters to train its Seedance 2.0 model. According to statements, Bytedance would have created a package of copyrighted characters to feed this artificial intelligence, the main reason why it is so accurate at recreating them. Bytedance’s response. The Chinese company has not acknowledged having used copyrighted characters to train its model, but it has reacted to Disney’s notice. “We are taking steps to strengthen current safeguards as we work to prevent unauthorized use of intellectual property and likeness by users.” Beyond the statement, the company has not detailed what measures it is taking to prevent users from distributing copyrighted content, such as the one we have been seeing flooding the network for two weeks. They are not the first. Disney has already taken similar measures against Character.AIan AI specialized in creating animated characters capable of perfectly emulating Disney characters. The company It only has an alliance with OpenAIwith whom he signed an agreement so that Sora could generate more than 200 characters thanks to a three-year license. The operation included a $1 billion investment by Disney in OpenAI. Doors to the countryside. “Creative prompt engineering” and code modifications to make AI bypass the very limitations for which it is programmed are inevitable, in addition to all the derived Open-Source models that can be trained outside the jurisdiction. The key here is not in the dispute between Disney and Bytedance, it is that China has created the first model that directly threatens the creation of cinematographic content. Join the enemy. For some time now, the film industry has been clear that the coming years they will be cuts and embrace of AI. CEOs like Sony have already spoken out and positioned themselves as “very focused on AI”, making it clear that the current problem for movies is expense. Models like Seedance now allow us to generate in minutes what previously required entire teams and million-dollar budgets. In the coming years, video generation models will force the industry to rethink its cost structure. In Xataka | We are entering a new era of robotics driven by AI and Disney is its perfect showcase

Sydney Sweeney inaugurates the post-woke era of Hollywood

by

Nobody would bet on an erotic thriller starring a maid in 2025, but ‘The Housemaid’ has shown that Hollywood can still surprise when it recovers genres that seemed buried. The film directed by Paul Feig has raised more than 137 million dollars against a modest budget of 35 million, becoming the unexpected success of Christmas. And that success says a lot about the political moment that Hollywood is going through. Immediate success. The success was so overwhelming that Lionsgate confirmed a sequel just 17 days after its releasesomething unheard of in today’s industry. The fascinating thing is that ‘The Maid’ does not invent anything: it unapologetically recovers the recipe of the nineties erotic thriller with its triangle of sex, money and deadly secrets. As Some critics have pointed out the film “proves that dead Hollywood genres still have life” if executed with conviction. For Sydney Sweeney, this triumph is especially significant after the failures of ‘Christy’ and ‘Eden’, which They threatened to derail his career just when he seemed to begin to establish himself as a star. Anatomy of an extinct genus. The erotic thriller was born as a mass phenomenon in 1987, when ‘Fatal Attraction’, with Glenn Close and Michael Douglas, raised more than 320 million dollars and spent eight weeks at number one at the box office. Five years later, ‘Basic Instinct’ raised the stakes with Sharon Stone and again Michael Douglas throwing us some of the most high-voltaic scenes ever seen on screen. It raised 353 million. He secret of the formula It was a mix of noir classic and explicit sex, with luxury mansions, a reformulation of the trope of femme fatale and continuous plot twists. The death of the genre. The fever unleashed an avalanche of more than 700 movies direct to video between 1985 and 2005, while screenwriters like Joe Eszterhas (of ‘Basic Instinct’) became millionaires. At the end of the nineties, the genre collapsed due to market saturation and because The arrival of the Internet democratized access to pornographyeliminating the need to look for eroticism in cinema mainstream. Until now there has been no possibility of resurrection for the genre because the post-cultural cultural changes#MeToo They made the genre’s tropes (dangerous women punished for leading uncontrolled, unconventional and, above all, undomesticated) sexual lives problematic. The (boring) icing on the cake: Hollywood reoriented its films towards family franchises that could be sold in conservative markets like China. Perpetual recycling. The film industry works like a cemetery with revolving doors: genres never completely die, they just hibernate, waiting for their moment. Romantic comedies seemed extinct last decade, victims of Marvel, until Sydney Sweeney herself raised $220 million in 2023 with ‘Anyone But You’. We have seen it before countless times: ‘Django Unchained’ became the the highest grossing western in historyand from those muds these ‘Yellowstone’. The musicals returned with ‘La La Land’ in 2016, and there we have its successor ‘Wicked’ as one of the sensations of the moment. For its part, nostalgia for modest budget horror It has gone from fashion to phenomenon. The cycle of life. And the pattern repeats itself: a genre is born, reaches saturation, collapses due to excess and exhaustion of the formula, disappears for 15 or 25 years, and is resurrected when a new generation rediscovers it without the negative stigma of saturation. The key is about creating hybrids that incorporate contemporary sensibilities into classic DNA, and streaming has accelerated this process, as platforms like Netflix allow experimentation outside the traditional systemwith less financial risk, since it can refer to niches that traditional studies ignore. The post-woke moment. December 2024 marked a turning point when two major publications (The New York Times and The Telegraph) simultaneously declared that Hollywood had entered a “post-woke era.” The NYT article was especially blunt in dismissing the last decade of diverse stories, celebrating that “we no longer have to pretend to like something just because it has the right politics.” The 2025 box office data confirms the diagnosis: the productions that have triumphed at the box office (‘Lilo & Stitch‘, ‘Zootopia 2’, ‘A Minecraft movie‘, ‘Avatar 3‘) are absolutely harmless in that sense. ‘The Assistant’ is a twist that goes even further in this trend. The film recovers archetypes that the era of political correctness had left behind: femme fatale seductive without feminist justification, explicit sexuality without any type of pedagogy, class conflict dressed in the garb of a thriller without a message. There are no characters written to capture demographics, just a dirty story (with no minority representation) about money, power and betrayal. Sweeney’s presence, raised a few months ago as anti-woke icon It’s not exactly coincidental. The lesson of the market. ‘The Housemaid’ confirms that what is old is new again when the public is hungry for something that the industry no longer offers. The female audience (which represents more than 55% of viewers of the film) has shown that there is a demand for sophisticated adult content that is not superheroes or family animation. While ‘Avatar 3’ and ‘Zootopia 2’ dominated with budgets in the hundreds of millions, ‘The Housemaid’ billed 133 million occupying a space without competition. The question that remains is whether we are facing a structural change or simply another passing cycle. Sydney Sweeney accumulates now three consecutive years with at least one commercial success per year (‘Anyone but you’, ‘Immaculata’, ‘The maid’), which suggests that he has found a formula. If ‘The Housemaid’s Secret’, the sequel, generates a viable franchise, it will have managed to revive a dead genre. Hollywood Cemetery, after all, has always been more of a warehouse than a definitive grave. In Xataka | We Spaniards have stopped watching TV, going to the cinema and reading books: the only thing that interests us is going to concerts

Parmersan cheese is extremely serious business in Italy. To the point of having his own agent in Hollywood

by

The most famous cheese in the world (with permission from Cabrales) has just hired representation in Hollywood. The Parmigiano Reggiano Consortium (which is what the Italians call what we simply call Parmesan) has signed United Talent Agency (UTA), one of the leading agencies in the film industry, to boost the presence of the Italian product in films, television series and platforms streaming on an international scale. The agreement. The strategy seeks to position this cheese with a Protected Designation of Origin in global productions in a more or less natural way, taking advantage of the fact that it is known throughout the world. According to statements by Carmine Forbuso, marketing manager of the Italian organization, the cheese represents “simplicity, quality and depth” thanks to only three ingredients, all natural, and centuries of tradition in its artisanal production. Exports of the product reached 53.2% in the first eight months of 2025. How’s the thing going? product placement. The global advertising placement market reached $33 billion in 2024 with a growth of 12.3% annually, which far exceeds the increase in traditional advertising investment. This marketing strategy has been experiencing four consecutive years of double-digit expansion, and as a marketing strategy it has doubled in size compared to 2018, so no, we are not just talking about the jar of soluble cocoa in ‘Family Doctor’. Specialized agencies as UTA ​​Entertainment Marketingwhich will represent parmesan, have doubled revenue in two years. And it seems to work: the success of this tactic lies in its naturalness, since more than 52% of US consumers They prefer these appearances over conventional advertisements. Some precedents in Hollywood. The history of product placement modern food has its founding moment in 1982when candy brand Reese’s Pieces focused all the attention on a crucial scene from Spielberg’s ‘ET.’ Mars refused to allow M&M’s to be used and it was quite a mistake, as Hershey, makers of Reese’s Pieces, tripled sales in two weeks. Currently it is a popular resource: in 2024, for exampleCoca-Cola appeared in 561 films and series. When it goes wrong. However, the forced placement It often generates rejection, and it is something that brands have to take into account. The oldest people in the place remember with a shudder the movie ‘My Friend Mac’ (curiously, a plagiarism of ‘ET’), full of covert advertising for Pepsi and MacDonald’s, and in whose restaurants even a musical number took place. When the brand interrupts the logical narrative of the film The viewer perceives it as invasive advertising, and that is what happened in this classic of eighties alien dandruff. Header | Brands&People in Unsplash In Xataka | Italy’s forbidden dish: a cheese so extreme in its preparation that the European Union had to put limits on it

There is an industry losing 42,000 jobs and bleeding before us: Hollywood

by

The entertainment industry in Los Angeles is going through its worst crisis in decadeswith a dizzying drop in the number of productions and jobs, which has caused a feeling of “economic disaster” in the creative heart of California. It seems like a well-known story that we recover cyclically every few years, but this time some abysmal figures, never seen before, accompany: the media have detected how companies are entering a real emergency situation. Are we contemplating Hollywood’s last great crisis? Two years of chaos. According to The Wall Street Journalthe crisis that Hollywood is going through not only affects the large studios and production companies, but also has an impact on thousands of indirect jobs and the commercial fabric of the city: restaurants, technical services, prop stores and housing have seen how the activity linked to film and television is drastically reduced. In the last two years, more than 40,000 jobs have been lost in the sector, leaving animators, technicians, scriptwriters, operators and small businesses in a precarious situation, and raising the local unemployment rate above the state and national average.​ Some data. These 40,000 direct jobs disappeared represent a drop of more than 20% of the sector’s total. With this, the unemployment rate in Los Angeles County for industry professionals has reached 5.7%, exceeding not only the state average of California (5.5%) but also the national average of the United States, around 4.3%. All this has led to a drop in local production to historical record numberswith a decrease of at least 30% in film and television projects recorded in Los Angeles, continuously since 2023.​ And how is that reflected for practical purposes? In it production exodus: The number of Hollywood projects filming outside of California, primarily in states with more competitive tax incentives such as Georgia and New Mexico, has risen 25%.​ The signal from the sets. The occupation of the Hollywood sets It is perhaps the clearest sign of how the area’s economy has fallen. In 2024, the average occupancy of sets in Los Angeles fell to a historic 63%, a significant decrease from the average of more than 90% that remained constant between 2016 and 2022. And there is another fact: only 20% of the activity on sets was destined for television, down from 30% in previous years. The cause, as we will see below, is the reduction in expenses that the platforms of streamingimmersed in extreme savings policies.​ But why does it happen? First of all, prolonged strikes of scriptwriters and actors since 2023, which paralyzed a good part of local production, generating million-dollar losses and discouraging new investments from being generated. Added to this is the considerable increase in the cost of living and production in Los Angeles, which has led many studios and production companies to seek alternative destinations with tax incentives and more attractive subsidies, such as those mentioned above, Canada or other emerging markets.​ Another significant cause is the transformation of the entertainment economic modelparticularly with the proliferation of platforms streaming. These platforms, faced with market saturation and pressure to maintain profitability, have reduced their budgets and the number of projectstaking away part of the total production volume in Los Angeles. The combination of lower demand and budgetary adjustments has pushed the industry into a prolonged contraction.​ And finally, there is the emergence of artificial intelligencewith its challenge to traditional labor, especially in fields such as animation, visual effects and post-production. And now what. To begin with, an immediate effect: The position of the United States as a global leader in audiovisual production is in danger. Not only are a significant number of productions moving to other regions and even countries, attracted by better fiscal conditions, lower costs and cheaper technical equipment. It is that thanks to the globalization of entertainment that has brought streamingticket offices like those in Korea or China They are no longer secondary. This week’s highest-grossing film worldwide it has been an anime. The animation phenomenon of the year has been a k-pop idol movie. The throne is more disputed than ever. Header | Braden Egli in Unsplash In Xataka | While Hollywood goes through a slump, one film industry is constantly filling theaters: the Chinese one

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.