netflix

Today the sequel that took 24 years to film and ended up failing at the box office after spending a huge budget arrives on Netflix

by

It took Ridley Scott 24 years to return to the Coliseum. When he did it with ‘Gladiator II‘, a cast that was breathtaking was brought in, with Paul Mescal, Denzel Washington, Pedro Pascal and a budget that, depending on who you ask, exceeded 310 million dollars with the expectation of repeating the magic of its predecessor, which had won five Oscars in 2000. It didn’t quite succeed, but in streaming it has a second chance: you have it starting today Tuesday, April 28 on Netflix. The first announcement of a sequel to ‘Gladiator’ It dates back to June 2001, just a year after the release of the original. And Russell Crowe was on board even though his Maximus had died on screen. For years, Scott toyed with crazy ideas that included the resurrection of the character or a plot about the afterlife. The project stalled when DreamWorks sold the rights to the franchise to Paramount Pictures in 2006. What got the sequel out of limbo was that Scott saw Paul Mescal in the first few episodes of ‘Normal People’ and wanted to work with him. Scott also wanted to resolve the plot of Lucius Verus, then a child, now sixteen years after Maximus’ death. He lives under another identity in North Africa, until the Roman army invades and destroys his home, kills his wife and enslaves him. Brought to Rome as a gladiator, Lucius falls under the control of a former slave turned arms dealer, who uses him in the arena of the Colosseum while he secretly weaves his own plans to seize the throne from the corrupt twin emperors Caracalla and Geta. And so began an eventful filming, interrupted by the screenwriters’ strikes, which sent costs skyrocketing, according to some sources, beyond $300 million. With a final collection of 462 million worldwide, the business was somewhat lame. However, with its passage through platforms (in the United States it is exclusively on Paramount+, and has been on VOD for months), it is very possible that ‘Gladiator II’ can boast more comfortable profits and thus give rise to the already planned ‘Gladiator III’ in which Mescal has already expressed his interest. In Xataka | Today the animated spin-off of the platform’s only powerful franchise premieres on Netflix: ‘Stranger Things’

A survival thriller coming to Netflix tomorrow that pits Charlize Theron against a psychopath in the depths of Australia

by

A murderer chooses his victim carefully. That’s what Ben (Taron Egerton) does when he determines that Sasha (Charlize Theron), an elite climber who has entered the outback Australian to overcome a duel, is his next objective. What Ben doesn’t know is that Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur has spent twenty years specializing in placing extraordinary actors in devastating environments. The result of this clash receives the poor translation of ‘Dominant predator‘in Spain (the original is the most elegant’Apex‘), premieres on April 24 on Netflix and is pure popcorn party. Shot entirely in real locations, the film put Egerton and Theron, who are joined by Eric Bana, to the limit of their strength. In fact, Theron suffered a broken toe during filming and continued filming without anyone on the crew knowing. A good example of how the film posed a challenge for its performers that went beyond the strong psychological tension that is drawn between the two rivals. In fact, The approach of ‘Apex’ is one of the oldest in action cinema: The short story ‘The Most Dangerous Game’ by Richard Connell, published in 1924, described an aristocrat who hunted humans on his private island, and inspired a total classic of the genre in 1932, ‘The Evil Zaroff’. From there, multiple variants of the “people hunting” trope, and which is often, as here, accentuated by a danger that is added to the relentless hunters: an environment that functions as a gigantic trap. ‘Apex’ director Baltasar Kormákur has spent two decades building a filmography around a single question: what does extreme adversity do to people? His most relevant survival films, ‘Everest’ (inspired by a real catastrophe in 1996), ‘Adrift’ (about a couple trapped in the ocean after a hurricane), and ‘The Beast’ (where Idris Elba confronts a lion in South Africa), have common characteristics: real locations, actors subjected to harsh physical conditions and landscapes that are both scenery and threat. This new Netflix exclusive ‘Apex’ plays in that same league. In Xataka | 16 premieres on Netflix: this week, the new ‘Stranger Things’, a rare British series and the return of Charlize Theron

In two days the animated spin-off of the platform’s only powerful franchise premieres on Netflix: ‘Stranger Things’

by

On December 31, 2025, Netflix aired the final episode of ‘Stranger Things‘. With it, the platform recorded its most viewed New Year’s broadcast in history and put the finishing touch to the platform’s most viewed series, exceeding 1.2 billion accumulated views. And four months later Eleven, Mike, Dustin and the rest of the Hawkins gang are back, but this time in animated format With new voices and a new showrunnerthis ‘Stranger Things: Stories from 85′ this one arrives April 23 to Netflix. And how is it presented when the main story has already closed? Well, going back to when it wasn’t yet: the series takes place in the winter of 1985, between the second and third original seasons. That interval existed in the canon, although it did not come without a technical problem: at the end of T2, Eleven closes the door to the Other Side. T3 starts in July of that same year. How do you fit interdimensional monsters into a story that takes place during the months when the door is sealed? Easy: Particles from the Other Side that escaped before the door closed have begun to mutate into different plant species in Hawkins, generating hybrid creatures like a “snow shark.” All of this comes from the original visual style of the illustrator Meybis Ruiz Cruz and which, through animation, Netflix has wanted to bring closer to series from the eighties such as ‘He-Man’ or ‘The Real Ghostbusters’, but without losing sight of more recent proposals such as the animated films of the Spider-verse or ‘Arcane’. ‘Stories of 85’ obeys the tactic of keeping a franchise alive once it is impossible to do so with the original actors, through formats that alleviate technical and distribution demands. If this experiment works, we will undoubtedly see similar attempts with series like ‘Wednesday’ or ‘The Bridgertons’, and that without leaving Netflix. And, of course, if it works it will also continue on this side: according to the new showrunnerEric Robles, there are ideas to cover many other intervals in the official series. You have to milk it from somewhere. In Xataka | 16 premieres on Netflix: this week, the new ‘Stranger Things’, a rare British series and the return of Charlize Theron

With the new increase, the Netflix plan with ads already costs more than what it cost to watch the platform without advertising two years ago

by

Netflix has just confirmed a new price increase in Spain. When the platform presented the plan with ads in 2022, it did so as the economic option for those who did not want to pay the full rate. Four years later, as Antonio Ortiz emphasized in Xthat plan with advertising costs more than the old basic plan cost without any type of advertising, which was eliminated in 2023. The new prices. The increase affects the three rates available in Spain. This is how they look: Standard Plan with ads: It goes from 6.99 to 8.99 euros per month, an increase of two euros or close to 29%. Standard Plan without ads: It goes up from 13.99 to 14.99 euros. Premium Plan: Access to four simultaneous screens, 4K resolution and without ads, scale from 19.99 to 21.99 euros, surpassing the barrier of 20 euros per month for the first time. This is the second price increase in less than two years, since in October 2024 the company increased its rates in Spain. The new prices are now active for new users and will apply to current users in the next billing cycle. Ten years reviewing upwards. Netflix arrived in Spain in October 2015. Since then, the evolution of its rates describes a trajectory without exceptions. In 2017 the Standard plan increased by one euro and the Premium plan by two. The same pattern was repeated in 2019 and 2021. In 2022 it introduced the plan with ads at 5.49 euros, and in 2023 it eliminated the basic plan of 7.99 euros to push towards that advertising option. Already in 2021 we were talking about how the Premium plan had risen 50% in four years. It has not stopped doing so: currently it costs 21.99 euros, in 2017 11.99. Almost double in nine years. The paradox of the cheap rate. As we say, when the plan with advertisements arrived in Spain it did so 5.49 euros per month. Subsequently It went to 6.99 euros and now stands at 8.99 euros, which represents a joint increase of around 64% since its launch. That is, Netflix’s cheapest option has gone above what the old Basic plan without ads cost, which remained at 7.99 euros until its final elimination. In other words: whoever today wants to pay as little as possible on Netflix accepts advertising and pays more than what those who had a completely ad-free subscription paid two years ago. Because. The company often justifies these revisions as necessary to sustain investment in content. Netflix plans to allocate about $20 billion to this aspect in 2026, 10% more than in 2025. But there is a very clear reason for these increases to arrive at a fixed and almost biannual cadence: Netflix has more than 325 million global subscribers and previous increases have not caused significant falls in its user base. Put into practice: the plan with ads accumulates more than 190 million monthly active users and represents 55% of new registrations in markets with enabled advertisingaccording to the company’s own data. It is the segment that has grown the most, and also the one that suffers the greatest percentage increase in this last round. The end of the climbs? At the beginning of this month, a court ruling in Italy It could mark a before and after in the relationship between the platform and the continent’s regulators. A court in Rome ruled that price increases applied by Netflix in Italy between 2017 and 2024 are illegal under the national consumer code, which requires specific and advance justification of any price change. Premium subscribers active since 2017 could receive refunds of up to 500 euros and those on the Standard plan, around 250. Netflix has 90 days to notify all those affected through its website and national media, under penalty of 700 euros per day for delay. The judges’ decision is a good blow for the finances of Netflix, which is going to appeal the ruling, and which could affect the platform’s more than 5.4 million subscribers in Italy. The potential bill for the platform could exceed 2 billion euros. The door to similar litigation in other European countries remains open, although the transposition of European Directive 93/13/EEC on which the Italian court’s decision is based varies between legislations. In Spain, for now, it can be applied but a comparable judicial resolution has not yet been reached, although FACUA has filed a complaint before the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, which could also end the platform in court. In Xataka | 29 years later, Netflix has become the television it promised to replace. That’s why Wall Street has punished her

Netflix makes more money than ever and its shares fall 9%. The explanation is that Netflix is ​​the new mainstream

by

Reed Hastings founded Netflix 29 years ago with an idea as simple as it was revolutionary: charge a fixed fee in exchange for access to content on demand and without interruptions, in a digital version of the video store by mail in which the company took its first steps. This Thursday, as the company posted solid quarterly results that still disappointed Wall Street, it was announced that Hastings will step down from the board of directors in June. The man who built Netflix is ​​leaving now that the platform is no longer what he envisioned. The results. The results for the first quarter of 2026 are, in absolute terms, notables. They reached 12.25 billion dollars, 16% more than in the same period of the previous year, meeting what the company itself had projected and slightly exceeding the average expectations of analysts. Net profit grew 82% to $5.23 billion. It is a spectacular percentage, yes, but that earnings per share of $1.23 includes the $2.8 billion break-up fee Frustrated deal with Warner Bros. Discoverywhich inflates the accounting result. Without it, the number would have been more modest. And that’s why shares fell 9% on Wall Street. Fall in the stock market. The main reason for this stock market crash was not the data for the quarter, but the outlook for the second. Netflix projects 13% growth in revenue for Q2, to about $12.6 billion, when the Wall Street consensus was closer to $13.1 billion. The difference is small in relative terms, but enough to remind us that investors have been accustomed for years to Netflix far exceeding its forecasts. Goodbye Hastings… The company has also announced that Reed Hastings, co-founder and until now president of the councilwill not stand for reelection when his term expires at the shareholders meeting on June 4, 2026. This ends 29 years with the company which he himself co-founded. Hastings had already given a step back in January 2023when he left the co-CEO position in the hands of Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters. His definitive departure from the board, the company explained, responds to his desire to focus on philanthropy and other projects. During the call to analysts after the presentation of results, Sarandos had to respond to whether Hastings’ departure had any relationship with the failure of the operation with Warner Bros. Discovery. Sarandos stated that “I’m sorry to anyone who seeks palace intrigue. Reed was a great defender of that agreement.” …hello to the announcements. Hastings was for years one of the most visible skeptics within the company regarding the use of streaming advertising. In 2022, when Netflix first lost subscribersdeclared to be “against the complexity of advertisements.” Four years later, the advertising business has become one of the structural pillars of the company. The company works with more than 4,000 advertisers, 70% more than the previous year, and the advertising-supported plan already accounts for more than 60% of new registrations in the 12 countries where it is available, according to data from Netflix itself. The projection of advertising revenue for 2026 is 3,000 million dollars, double the 1.5 billion generated in 2025. It is paradoxical that the platform that has been seen as an evolutionary step of traditional television, without its inconveniences (among which, without a doubt, is advertising), now competes directly with YouTube and linear television for brand advertisements. What’s more: Netflix has migrated its advertising technology to its own platform, leaving behind dependence on Microsoft, and programmatic purchasing It is already close to 50% of its advertising business not tied to events. The paradox. That is, everything in these results points to a great paradox. The company itself recognizes which represents less than 5% of the share global television, but projected annual revenues of between $50.7 billion and $51.7 billion place it among the largest media companies on the planet. And meanwhile, its shares fall 9%. There is an explanation for all of this. For years, Netflix was a company of exponential growth, the type of asset that technology funds love: skyrocketing subscriber metrics, unstoppable geographic expansion, its own content that accumulated prestige and audience… Now it is something else: the mainstreamprofitable and predictable, with several monetization levers (subscription, advertising, live sports, gaming) and a business model that is no longer surprising, but widely imitated. A solid company, with a dominant position and prospects for growing profitability, but at a calm pace, in the medium term. It is certainly not the Netflix that Hastings built. In Xataka | Netflix is ​​desperate to find the next franchise that will make it gold. The problem is that he can’t find it.

Cinema has been accusing Netflix and Amazon of suffocating it for years. Now it has new saviors: Netflix and Amazon

by

In Las Vegas, before thousands of theater owners, the head of Amazon MGM Studios promised that at least 15 of its films a year would reach theaters. He did so days after Netflix, which has been avoiding cinemas for years, announced that it will respect traditional exhibition windows for Warner Bros. films, thus building new bridges of understanding with its former enemies, traditional cinemas. Coincidence or highly studied public relations move? 15 a year doesn’t hurt. Mike Hopkins, director of Prime Video and Amazon MGM Studios, He was very direct with the exhibitors: “While some competitors have entered and exited the theatrical waters, for us this is neither a test nor an experiment. Our commitment to release at least 15 films each year in your theaters is underway.” The theater owners responded with a standing ovation. Amazon backs this promise with figures: they have been announcing for some time an investment of $1 billion annually in movies for theaters. The ‘Hail Mary’ gift. Immediately afterwards, Ryan Gosling spoke. The actor and producer of ‘Salvation Project’the science fiction film that has been dominating the global box office for weeks, thanked the exhibitors for their decisive role in the film’s success. He later said that the production, which has accumulated more than $525 million at the global box office, was going to extend its exhibition window, delaying its arrival on digital platforms. A true gift of good will for a sector that appreciates any oxygen cylinder. In the other corner. On the other hand we have Netflix. In April 2025, his co-CEO Ted Sarandos described going to the movies as “an outdated concept”. Obviously, given the platform’s trend-setting power, the statement did not sit particularly well with exhibitors. Months later, when Netflix announced its intention to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery for around 80,000 million dollars, the alarm became something more concrete: the main studio committed to the exhibition passed into the hands of the platform most hostile to traditional cinema. Collect cable. Sarandos partially retreated in January 2026 in an interview: “When this deal closes, we will have a phenomenal theatrical distribution engine that generates billions of dollars of theatrical revenue that we do not want to put at risk. We will manage that business as it is today, with 45-day windows.” He clarified his comment about “outdated” cinema: he was referring to locations without access to theaters, not to the experience itself. Internally, suspicions did not subside: according to the CEO of the Cinemark chainNetflix intended to approach a window of only 17 days. Cinemas are improving. The point is that a slight improvement is detected in the situation of cinemas. According to Comscorethe US box office accumulated from the beginning of this year until April 12 reached $2.26 billion, 23% above the same period of the previous year and the best figure since 2019. Ticket sales grew by 16%, reaching 154 million viewers. This improvement has been echoed among production companies: Universal, which during the pandemic reduced its windows to 17 days, has already announced that will extend its guaranteed minimum to 45 days since January 2027. In this context, MGM’s congratulations and Netflix’s change in philosophy make sense. Reasons for suspicion. The rooms, however, have reasons to be reticent. David Zaslav, CEO of Warner, promised three years ago 20 films a year from Warner Bros. for rooms. He never kept his promise. But we may be seeing the winds of change blowing. The box office in slight but clear improvement, the expansion of windows and the regulatory pressure They are creating a panorama in which it is more profitable for platforms to be allies of cinemas than enemies. Although the rooms know that they have to make sure before burying the hatchet. In Xataka | Spotify killed the record and the industry pivoted to concerts. Netflix killed cinema and the industry was left with a “space crisis”

Netflix would be the third most viewed “channel”

by

Every morning, the media publishes very similar headlines regarding television audiences: Antena 3 is the leader, La 1 is rising consistently and Telecinco is praying not to continue collapsing. All of this is measured with audiometers from Fifty5Blue (until known as Kantar Media), which only measures live linear television. That is, leisure choices that leave out an increasingly common option: Netflix, YouTube and other streaming platforms. Habits have changed, but measurements have not, although little by little other variables are beginning to be considered. New figures. Fifty5Blue itself publishes a monthly report that provides more precise figures. The Cross-Platform View tool combines the traditional audiometer with the Focal Meter, a digital device that the company launched in 2021 and that measures online video consumption on all screens connected to a home network. It only covers the television (not the mobile phone or tablet), but it is a step in a refreshing direction. The data. Let’s go with the numbers, which El País already highlighted: the Fifty5Blue data for February 2026 show that 78.8% of television consumption in Spanish homes corresponds to linear channels (73% free-to-air, 5.7% paid) and the remaining 21.2% to digital platforms. Within that block, Netflix accounts for 7.1%, YouTube 5.6% and Prime Video 2.7%. The January data was almost identical. If we cross these figures with the conventional screen share, the classification looks like this in February, adjusted to the real audiences of Netflix and YouTube: Antena 3 goes from 12.9% to 10.2% 1 drops to 9.7% Netflix is ​​in third place with 7.1% That is, ahead of Telecinco (6.8%) And YouTube is hot on the heels of Mediaset with 5.6% That is to say, two subscription platforms, one of them free access, compete head to head with historical chains. Below is Prime Video which, in any case, is located just above La 2. It is important to emphasize that we are only talking about consumption on television: if viewing on mobile phones, tablets and computers were added, the shares of Netflix, Prime Video and YouTube would be somewhat higher. The Youtube moment. YouTube’s fifth position in the Spanish ranking is a very interesting fact. According to the Nielsen Media Distributor Gauge January 2026Google’s platform maintained first place in television consumption in the United States for the eleventh consecutive month, with a 12.5% ​​share compared to the 10.8% registered a year earlier. Disney was second with 11.9%; Netflix, fourth with 8.8%. Between 2023 and early 2025, YouTube’s share on TV in the US grew by 53%, according to Nielsen. As we have already commented on other occasionsYouTube does not compete with million-dollar production series. Its advantage is that its catalog is infinite, and it is capturing demographics outside the usual television consumption. In Spain, the phenomenon is in an earlier phase than the United States, but the data points in the same direction. The mystery of streaming. We already pointed out in 2024 that audience data in streaming They continue to be one of the great mysteries of the sector, and the proliferation of different metrics for each platform generates confusion. Netflix was the first to hire Fifty5Blue to provide externally verifiable data, but that model has not spread. There is a certain chaos in the figures provided by the platforms, which cannot be compared with each other, especially when the figures from the most powerful one speak in terms (number of hours of viewing over number of viewers or percentages comparable to the share of the linear ones) that prevent you from placing all the options on the same plane. For now we have to settle for provisional calculations like those made by Cross-Platform View, and while advertisers continue to go to traditional platforms. However, the renewal of habits and options chosen by viewers is a fact. Audience measurement is going to have to adapt sooner or later to this new normal. In Xataka | Beyond ‘La casa de papel’: how Spain has managed to ensure that one of every four series played is its own

Netflix has slowly raised prices and already costs more than much pay TV

by

Netflix price rises again. For now, only in the United States, although movements like this tend to be the canary in the mine of increases: very possibly, we will soon experience a similar one in Europe. It is the second increase in less than two years for a platform with more than 325 million subscribers in the world, in a sector where escalating prices has become the norm. The new prices. The standard plan with ads, the cheapest, goes from $7.99 to $8.99 per month. The ad-free standard goes up two dollars, from 17.99 to 19.99. The premium (four simultaneous screens, 4K, no ads) scales from $24.99 to $26.99 per month. The cost of adding an extra member also increases: one dollar more in all cases, that is, it remains at $6.99 for the plan with ads and 9.99 for the variants without advertising. The average increase is around 11% and the new prices will be applied in the next billing cycle, after notifying subscribers by email. To understand the proportion of the accumulation, it is worth looking back. The standard plan without ads was $15.49 before January 2025 and $11.99 until October 2023. In less than three years, that same plan has gone from just over twelve dollars to twenty. 22,000 million profit. Netflix does not raise prices because it needs to. In 2025 it generated $45.2 billion in revenue and a gross profit of almost 22,000 million, with an operating margin of 29.5%, the highest in its history. Net profit for the year was 11,000 million, and free cash flow reached 9,500 million, compared to 6,900 million in 2024. For 2026, it projects an operating margin of 31.5%. Netflix is ​​not a struggling company looking to plug holes. The increase does not respond to financial pressure but to just the opposite: the company has detected that it can charge more because it knows that the majority of its subscribers are not going to leave. The analyst firm TD Cowen calls him pricing power (pricing power), which is the technical way of saying that the customer is trapped enough to take the hit. According to their estimates, the average revenue per subscriber in the US and Canada will grow 6% in 2026 due to this adjustment alone. Shared accounts no. Added to all this is the ban on account sharing, applied globally since May 2023. Far from causing the flight of subscribers that many anticipated, the measure worked: since then Netflix has added tens of millions of new subscribers. What seemed like a risk was actually a monetization lever. Each household that previously took advantage of a third-party account had to choose: pay or do without the service. And the majority paid. Ads go up. The rise in the cheapest tier (from $7.99 to $8.99) is perhaps the most revealing move. This plan has existed since 2022, designed as a safety net for those who could not or did not want to pay more. It has worked: it accumulates more than 190 million monthly active users and represents 55% of new registrations in markets with advertising enabled, according to Netflix itself. That is, it is the plan that captures the most price-sensitive users, but the truth is that there is no longer a comfortable position within the Netflix ecosystem that is protected from increases. Especially this plan: The platform’s advertising revenue exceeded $1.5 billion in 2025, multiplying by 2.5 compared to the previous year. The goal for 2026 is to double that figure to nearly 3 billion. In this context, charging an extra dollar to 190 million people means optimizing to the maximum a source of income that already works perfectly. And in Spain? The increase currently affects only the US. In Spain, current prices They are the result of the last revision applied in October 2025: 6.99 euros for the plan with ads, 13.99 for the standard without advertising and 19.99 for the premium. In January 2025, when Netflix went up in the US, Canada and Portugal, Spain was left out. But it will end up arriving: Netflix has been in Spain for eleven years and in each cycle of between twelve and eighteen months it has revised upwards some of its plans, usually with increases of one or two euros. As I said: everything according to plan. In Xataka | You’ve rewatched an episode of your favorite series and you feel like it’s missing scenes. You’re not paranoid: they are being removed

Before, stars were born in movies and ended up on Netflix. Now they are born in streaming and end in movies

by

‘War Machine’, the war science fiction film starring Alan Ritchson, has accumulated 39.3 million views in its first three days on Netflixbecoming the most viewed title on the platform globally today. The second most viewed film that week was ‘Jurassic World Rebirth’, by a huge margin: 6.7 million. The result is also a symptom of how the star factory has changed: the new star system is born on the platforms, not in the multiplexes. Other figures. The opening of ‘War Machine’ is the second best placed of the year on Netflix to date. If it keeps up the pace, it could aspire to enter the platform’s all-time Top 10 in the English-language film category. To gauge the magnitude: in all 87 countries tracked during that four-day windowthe film ranked number one in 80 of them. What is it about? The film is not especially original in its premise, and its authors do not intend it to be. Directed by Patrick Hughes (from the weak ‘The Expendables 3’ and the fun ‘The Other Bodyguard’) and produced by Lionsgate, it follows a group of candidates for the American Rangers during the final selection phase. Their training maneuver becomes a fight for survival when a robotic threat of alien origin appears. Alan Ritchson plays the character known only as 81, a traumatized combat engineer, even more silent and introverted than his famous Jack Reacher. Although all the critics have stressed its derivative and unpretentious nature, the truth is that its two-hour chase structure finds an enjoyable middle ground between ‘Predator’ and Heinlein’s Space Troops (not Verhoeven, there is no irony here, as seen in an ending with will continue that replies, without venom, the recruitment spots of that masterpiece 1997). ‘War Machine’ embraces its spirit of an effective and direct B series with a healthy brainlessness that makes perfect sense that it has found a millionaire audience, eager to disconnect and let themselves be dazed. The star. It has taken Alan Ritchson almost two decades to become a star. He debuted in ‘Smallville’ as Aquaman and then went unnoticed through multiple series as a secondary character until in 2022 he played the protagonist of ‘Reacher’ on Prime Video. The series, which championed the return of the television “for parents” (of which ‘War Machine’ is also an excellent example), is one of the biggest hits on the Amazon platform, and is already preparing its fourth season. In just a few weeks, Ritchson has managed to position himself as the number one actor simultaneously on Netflix and Prime Video with different projects. The distinction that for years existed between the star of streaming and the one that can sell a blockbuster in theaters with its mere presence is blurring. It is not the only case. Although the case of Ritchson, exclusive streaming star, is particular due to his almost total absence of films in his filmography, there are many other cases of proper names who owe a good part of their fame to the platforms. Pedro Pascal is now a global star whose fame was born entirely in hits for streaming (‘Game of Thrones’, ‘Narcos’, ‘The Last of Us’, ‘The Mandalorian’). Henry Cavill or Chris Hemsworth were born as movie stars, but they consolidated (‘The Witcher’, ‘Tyler Rake’) their fame in streaming. Dave Bautista or John Cena is also finding a second home in streaming thanks to hits like ‘Trap House’ or ‘El Pacificador’. Unmistakable signs of the change of times. Stars germinate in different places, but they generate hits with figures that rival the biggest blockbusters on the big screen. In Xataka | When medical dramas seemed to be in the doldrums, ‘The Pitt’ appeared. And that has forced Netflix to make decisions

Ben Affleck had been secretly setting up an AI company for filmmakers for four years. Netflix just got it

by

Netflix has acquired InterPositivethe post-production AI tools company that Ben Affleck founded in 2022 and that was quietly developing tools. Its 16 employees go to work for the platform and the actor and director takes on advisory roles. The operation occurs just a week after Netflix will abandon the bid for Warner Bros. Discovery. What InterPositive is NOT. It is worth starting with what InterPositive does not do: it does not generate movies from a prompt of text. It’s not soraor anything similar. InterPositive starts from the already shot material of a series or movie (in any production, what is known as the dailiesthe raw footage that is recorded each day) and trains a specific AI model according to the characteristics of each production. This model then allows manipulate material during post-production: correct color, relight shots, add visual effects, reframe shots or redo shots that were not filmed. The company’s first model, for example, was trained to understand what Affleck calls “visual logic and editorial consistency”, respecting the real conditions of a shoot: the model solved common problems such as missing shots, details in the backgrounds that need to be corrected, incorrect lighting… All oriented towards filming techniques, not the actors’ performances. AI yes, but with nuances. At a conference in 2024, Affleck argued that AI “will eliminate the most laborious, least creative and most expensive aspects of filmmaking,” reducing barriers to entry. His stance is born from a specific concern for preserving what he calls “judgment”: the ability to make creative decisions that are only built with decades of experience. Affleck spoke to Netflix executives from InterPositive for the first time last fall, and acknowledged initially feeling “scared” at the idea of ​​computers playing a central role in production. Netflix, in favor. The acquisition fits into a strategy that Netflix has been defining with some consistency since 2024. At that time, the Argentine ‘El Eternauta’ included the first AI-generated scene in the final footagea sequence that was completed ten times faster than it would have been possible to do it with conventional effects. In ‘Happy Gilmore 2’ they used AI to digitally rejuvenate actors, and in ‘Pedro Páramo’ as well, with a total budget equivalent to what the visual effects of ‘The Irishman’ alone cost five years earlier. That timing Well. It’s very curiousand it is not clear if it means anything, that the purchase of InterPositive is announced just a week after Netflix withdrew from the bidding for the studios and streaming from Warner Bros. Discovery. Netflix saved, in the words of its financial director, “2.8 billion dollars.” The acquisition of InterPositive, although certainly of much smaller dimensions (although nothing is known about figures), indicates where it can direct part of those resources: basically, its own production. Disney, on the other side. Meanwhile, one of Netflix’s biggest competitors, Disney, has signed a three-year license agreement with OpenAI which allows Sora users to create short videos with more than 200 characters from Disney, Marvel, Pixar and Star Wars. One billion dollars of investment that goes in the opposite direction to what Netflix intends, which is to make its own productions cheaper. Regardless of the position of each player in this game, Hollywood experiments more and more openly with AI in all phases of production, from pre-production to visual effects. A new landscape is opening up for film production and Affleck’s company is just one of the first chapters. In Xataka | ‘Critterz’ will be much more than the first AI-animated film: welcome to the new era of machine-made cinema

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.