‘Jurassic World Rebirth' Review: A Fun But Fairly Forgettable Ride
Published: 7 Jul 2025
Share Copy Link
Readtime: 6 min
Every product is carefully selected by our editors and experts. If you buy from a link, we may earn a commission. Learn more. For more information on how we test products, click here.
Let's face it, we all know what we're getting into when we sit down for a Jurassic Park movie. Dinos are hungry, and we're on the menu. While Jurassic World Rebirth might not rewrite the DNA of the franchise, it does deliver an entertaining ride with the kind of dino-filled fun that keeps us coming back for more.
Nostalgia Fuel
If you've seen any of the six previous Jurassic films, you've pretty much seen this one. If AI were to make a Jurassic movie, it might look something like Jurassic World Rebirth. No disrespect to all the hard-working, talented people behind the scenes, but that's essentially what Rebirth feels like.
It takes all the franchise hallmarks, aspects audiences have loved over the last 30-plus years, and works them into one film. It's a loving tribute to the franchise and also a reminder that when it comes to the Jurassic saga, we're essentially on an alternate version of the same ride.
Let's talk about the D-Rex (Distortus Rex), the film's bizarre poster child. If you haven't seen the promo shots yet, it looks like a T-Rex hooked up on a blind date with a beluga whale — the results aren't pretty. Poor bloke. We get the metaphor: as humans, we're always on the hunt for the next big thing and engineering our destruction for the sake of profit.
That being said, it's also a reflection of the Jurassic franchise itself, which is always trying to go bigger. The mutant dinosaur is just one of many new species in the film, but none really terrifies in the same way that Rexy did back in 1993. The CGI is top-tier (as you'd expect with ILM on the job), but these over-designed monsters lack a lot of the tangible, visceral punch that made the original Jurassic Park so memorable.
Scarlett Johansson in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment Jonathan Bailey and Scarlett Johansson in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment
New Island, Same Chaos
We're back on a remote island again — this time, Ile Saint-Hubert, which looks stunning thanks to the production's on-location shoot in Thailand and Malta. The new setting turns out to be the defunct research facility for the original attraction. How many islands did InGen have, anyway? From a story perspective, it's something of a walk in the park.
Written by David Koepp — who penned the screenplay for the original film — Rebirth sticks to the tried-and-true formula, rather than attempting anything new. It makes you wonder what kind of rebirth the series could have if it dared to take a risk.
The missed opportunity is when Rebirth flirts with going back to the roots of the Jurassic franchise and original source material. The research and development lab is a reminder of the Frankenstein influences that made the original Jurassic Park novel so compelling. There's an entire sequence that feels ripped straight from the Jaws playbook, and early on, the film is a reminder of how terrifying the Jurassic series can be.
As the straightforward plot barrels onwards, the film pivots back into its comfort zone. You know exactly who's going to become dino chow and who's going to make it to the credits. The Jurassic franchise isn't shy about winking at itself either, and Rebirth does its share of nodding along the way, including a Snickers wrapper that recalls the late, great Dennis Nedry.
Jonathan Bailey in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment
The Dangers of Technology
As for the characters, there are some attempts early on to inject emotional depth and backstory, but much of that gets sidelined once the dinosaurs arrive. Zora Bennett's (Scarlett Johansson) personal and professional struggles fade into the background as the action takes over, leaving her arc underdeveloped.
Duncan Kincaid (Mahershala Ali) is similarly introduced with hints of a troubled past and a complicated relationship with his family, but once the Mosasaurus appears, those layers are barely touched again. Dr Henry Loomis (Jonathan Bailey) has one of the story's more emotional moments as he encounters the source of his studies in the wild, but is also otherwise sidelined.
Despite the cast's best efforts to infuse some humanity, the focus on spectacle comes at the expense of the characters. Without the foundation of that strong connection, as soon as the dinosaurs start running, we stop caring. Given the amount of talent at the table, it leaves us wondering what was left on the cutting room floor.
Speaking of things being cut, Universal Studio's Jurassic Park River Adventure ride finally makes sense, now that the franchise has returned to a sequence once storyboarded for the original film. It's among the highlights in Rebirth, but after 30 years, it's hard to shake the sense that it doesn't quite capture the kind of nail-biting suspense and action that Spielberg would have delivered decades ago.
'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment
The Upside of Evolution
Credit where credit's due: Jurassic World Rebirth deserves a nod for its eco-conscious efforts. The production team leaned into Universal's GreenerLight programme, implementing eco-friendly measures at every stage of filming. From hybrid vehicles to beach cleanups, the team did its part to ensure that while dinosaurs were wreaking havoc on screen, the crew wasn't doing the same behind the scenes. Kudos to them for not leaving the world in worse shape than they found it.
Jurassic World Rebirth is a fun but fairly forgettable ride that checks all the boxes for franchise fans and delivers a few decent action sequences. It doesn't add much to the legacy, but it does hit those sweet Jurassic beats that we all love. This is a franchise that's still straddling the line between kid-friendly spectacle and something more complex. How much would you pay to see a real, no-holds-barred, adult-driven Jurassic film that's as terrifying and thought-provoking as it is thrilling? Until that happens, Rebirth scratches the prehistoric itch. Grab a dino-sized popcorn and enjoy the ride.
★★★☆☆ (3/5 stars)
Jonathan Bailey and Scarlett Johansson in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment
Mahershala Ali in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment
Scarlett Johansson in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment Jonathan Bailey and Scarlett Johansson in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment Scarlett Johansson in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment
Jonathan Bailey in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment
Mahershala Ali in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Man of Many
a day ago
- Man of Many
‘Jurassic World Rebirth' Review: A Fun But Fairly Forgettable Ride
By Chad Kennerk - Review Published: 7 Jul 2025 Share Copy Link Readtime: 6 min Every product is carefully selected by our editors and experts. If you buy from a link, we may earn a commission. Learn more. For more information on how we test products, click here. Let's face it, we all know what we're getting into when we sit down for a Jurassic Park movie. Dinos are hungry, and we're on the menu. While Jurassic World Rebirth might not rewrite the DNA of the franchise, it does deliver an entertaining ride with the kind of dino-filled fun that keeps us coming back for more. Nostalgia Fuel If you've seen any of the six previous Jurassic films, you've pretty much seen this one. If AI were to make a Jurassic movie, it might look something like Jurassic World Rebirth. No disrespect to all the hard-working, talented people behind the scenes, but that's essentially what Rebirth feels like. It takes all the franchise hallmarks, aspects audiences have loved over the last 30-plus years, and works them into one film. It's a loving tribute to the franchise and also a reminder that when it comes to the Jurassic saga, we're essentially on an alternate version of the same ride. Let's talk about the D-Rex (Distortus Rex), the film's bizarre poster child. If you haven't seen the promo shots yet, it looks like a T-Rex hooked up on a blind date with a beluga whale — the results aren't pretty. Poor bloke. We get the metaphor: as humans, we're always on the hunt for the next big thing and engineering our destruction for the sake of profit. That being said, it's also a reflection of the Jurassic franchise itself, which is always trying to go bigger. The mutant dinosaur is just one of many new species in the film, but none really terrifies in the same way that Rexy did back in 1993. The CGI is top-tier (as you'd expect with ILM on the job), but these over-designed monsters lack a lot of the tangible, visceral punch that made the original Jurassic Park so memorable. Scarlett Johansson in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment Jonathan Bailey and Scarlett Johansson in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment New Island, Same Chaos We're back on a remote island again — this time, Ile Saint-Hubert, which looks stunning thanks to the production's on-location shoot in Thailand and Malta. The new setting turns out to be the defunct research facility for the original attraction. How many islands did InGen have, anyway? From a story perspective, it's something of a walk in the park. Written by David Koepp — who penned the screenplay for the original film — Rebirth sticks to the tried-and-true formula, rather than attempting anything new. It makes you wonder what kind of rebirth the series could have if it dared to take a risk. The missed opportunity is when Rebirth flirts with going back to the roots of the Jurassic franchise and original source material. The research and development lab is a reminder of the Frankenstein influences that made the original Jurassic Park novel so compelling. There's an entire sequence that feels ripped straight from the Jaws playbook, and early on, the film is a reminder of how terrifying the Jurassic series can be. As the straightforward plot barrels onwards, the film pivots back into its comfort zone. You know exactly who's going to become dino chow and who's going to make it to the credits. The Jurassic franchise isn't shy about winking at itself either, and Rebirth does its share of nodding along the way, including a Snickers wrapper that recalls the late, great Dennis Nedry. Jonathan Bailey in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment The Dangers of Technology As for the characters, there are some attempts early on to inject emotional depth and backstory, but much of that gets sidelined once the dinosaurs arrive. Zora Bennett's (Scarlett Johansson) personal and professional struggles fade into the background as the action takes over, leaving her arc underdeveloped. Duncan Kincaid (Mahershala Ali) is similarly introduced with hints of a troubled past and a complicated relationship with his family, but once the Mosasaurus appears, those layers are barely touched again. Dr Henry Loomis (Jonathan Bailey) has one of the story's more emotional moments as he encounters the source of his studies in the wild, but is also otherwise sidelined. Despite the cast's best efforts to infuse some humanity, the focus on spectacle comes at the expense of the characters. Without the foundation of that strong connection, as soon as the dinosaurs start running, we stop caring. Given the amount of talent at the table, it leaves us wondering what was left on the cutting room floor. Speaking of things being cut, Universal Studio's Jurassic Park River Adventure ride finally makes sense, now that the franchise has returned to a sequence once storyboarded for the original film. It's among the highlights in Rebirth, but after 30 years, it's hard to shake the sense that it doesn't quite capture the kind of nail-biting suspense and action that Spielberg would have delivered decades ago. 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment The Upside of Evolution Credit where credit's due: Jurassic World Rebirth deserves a nod for its eco-conscious efforts. The production team leaned into Universal's GreenerLight programme, implementing eco-friendly measures at every stage of filming. From hybrid vehicles to beach cleanups, the team did its part to ensure that while dinosaurs were wreaking havoc on screen, the crew wasn't doing the same behind the scenes. Kudos to them for not leaving the world in worse shape than they found it. Jurassic World Rebirth is a fun but fairly forgettable ride that checks all the boxes for franchise fans and delivers a few decent action sequences. It doesn't add much to the legacy, but it does hit those sweet Jurassic beats that we all love. This is a franchise that's still straddling the line between kid-friendly spectacle and something more complex. How much would you pay to see a real, no-holds-barred, adult-driven Jurassic film that's as terrifying and thought-provoking as it is thrilling? Until that happens, Rebirth scratches the prehistoric itch. Grab a dino-sized popcorn and enjoy the ride. ★★★☆☆ (3/5 stars) Jonathan Bailey and Scarlett Johansson in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment Mahershala Ali in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment Scarlett Johansson in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment Jonathan Bailey and Scarlett Johansson in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment Scarlett Johansson in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment Jonathan Bailey in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment Mahershala Ali in 'Jurassic World Rebirth' (2025) | Image: Jasin Boland/Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment
The Advertiser
2 days ago
- The Advertiser
Can AI really write music you might want to listen to?
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to I want to disagree with Garry Linnell. In his last Echidna, he was of the opinion that music generated by AI was fine. "If a song created by an algorithm can break your heart or, better still, heal it, perhaps music and anything else we consider art still has a future after all in this increasingly artificial world of ours," he concluded elegantly but, in my opinion, wrongly. To my mind and ear, you can't divorce music from the human experience. It has to be authentic. A machine might write a love song, and it might be a sweet sound - but it will fall on my deaf ears. I'm not interested. Good music isn't just a string of notes. It has context and history. As an analogy, I think of the singer Joss Stone. She is phenomenally successful and belts out a good sound. She has her fans (in their millions) but soul music demands, well, soul - and that comes from an upbringing and a background. I met her as a sweet English teenager (her, not me) when she was starting out and trying to make a name for herself. It struck me then that she had a fabulous voice, throaty and growly, similar to Aretha Franklin's. The resonance was with the great soul singers of that black America where soul came from suffering. But Joss was a nice white girl from middle-class England. Aretha Franklin was born in a wooden shack in Tennessee in 1942 when black people risked death if they displeased a white man by, say, looking at him the wrong way or, even worse, at his wife. Soul music came from Aretha's experience. So, what has that got to do with artificially generated songs? The essence of music is that it needs to be authentic. It needs to reflect the human condition. It has to ring true. The Beach Boys were authentic. The Monkees were an inauthentic creation. AI does inauthentic creation at warp speed. It relies on copying the past. It relies on seeing what love songs have said and done and then varying it and replicating it. The result may be tuneful but it has no human resonance - no meaning, in the broad sense. Tell AI to write a new Bob Dylan song and the result would fool the ear - but not the mind. Musicians have always taken music from the past and developed it. Mozart did it. So did the Rolling Stones. All that is fine and creative. But AI doesn't quite do that. In a way, it mimics. It creates a kind of muzak. I'm not sure that AI could have created punk - or the later Beatles stuff, because they were both too different from previous music. One day, probably soon, someone will ask AI to create a Beethoven symphony, and the result will sound like a Beethoven symphony - but it won't be a Beethoven symphony, coming from that time, from Ludwig van's human experience. Listening to it might pass a pleasant hour but no more than that. It would be shallow. Take another example. If you were getting married and your best friend wrote an emotional, moving poem for the wedding, would it be just as moving if you found out later that it had been generated by AI in a machine? HAVE YOUR SAY: So, it's a choice. Is Garry right or am I right? Send your thoughts to echidna@ . By the way, I'm writing the Echidna for Tuesday but I promise to be fair-minded in selecting your views. SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Australian actor Julian McMahon, known for his roles in Nip/Tuck, Charmed and Home and Away, has died aged 56 after a private battle with cancer. - Israel will send a delegation to Qatar for talks on a possible Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal. - US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China about a possible TikTok deal, saying the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the short-video app. THEY SAID IT: "Don't look at me in that tone of voice." - Dorothy Parker YOU SAID IT: Rick said: "AI music is entirely about making money. Therefore, I believe it to be unnecessary. The Monkees may have acted (it's a stretch to call them actors), but they were actual musicians." Susan was more open to AI-generated music: "My eclectic music education began when I was very little, and my likes have few boundaries. My response is visceral. If it appeals, terrific. If not, I move on." Alex was worried about the implications of AI for human music-makers: "One big reason for concern about AI composition is that companies have trained their AI on songs written by humans, without compensation: AI developers have consistently massively infringed intellectual property rights, and that is not fair." Elaine said: "AI does not 'float my boat' and reading how much water (which is vital for our existence} is needed to generate this device is very worrying. With AI entering so many aspects of our lives, which is most important - humanity or AI?" This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to I want to disagree with Garry Linnell. In his last Echidna, he was of the opinion that music generated by AI was fine. "If a song created by an algorithm can break your heart or, better still, heal it, perhaps music and anything else we consider art still has a future after all in this increasingly artificial world of ours," he concluded elegantly but, in my opinion, wrongly. To my mind and ear, you can't divorce music from the human experience. It has to be authentic. A machine might write a love song, and it might be a sweet sound - but it will fall on my deaf ears. I'm not interested. Good music isn't just a string of notes. It has context and history. As an analogy, I think of the singer Joss Stone. She is phenomenally successful and belts out a good sound. She has her fans (in their millions) but soul music demands, well, soul - and that comes from an upbringing and a background. I met her as a sweet English teenager (her, not me) when she was starting out and trying to make a name for herself. It struck me then that she had a fabulous voice, throaty and growly, similar to Aretha Franklin's. The resonance was with the great soul singers of that black America where soul came from suffering. But Joss was a nice white girl from middle-class England. Aretha Franklin was born in a wooden shack in Tennessee in 1942 when black people risked death if they displeased a white man by, say, looking at him the wrong way or, even worse, at his wife. Soul music came from Aretha's experience. So, what has that got to do with artificially generated songs? The essence of music is that it needs to be authentic. It needs to reflect the human condition. It has to ring true. The Beach Boys were authentic. The Monkees were an inauthentic creation. AI does inauthentic creation at warp speed. It relies on copying the past. It relies on seeing what love songs have said and done and then varying it and replicating it. The result may be tuneful but it has no human resonance - no meaning, in the broad sense. Tell AI to write a new Bob Dylan song and the result would fool the ear - but not the mind. Musicians have always taken music from the past and developed it. Mozart did it. So did the Rolling Stones. All that is fine and creative. But AI doesn't quite do that. In a way, it mimics. It creates a kind of muzak. I'm not sure that AI could have created punk - or the later Beatles stuff, because they were both too different from previous music. One day, probably soon, someone will ask AI to create a Beethoven symphony, and the result will sound like a Beethoven symphony - but it won't be a Beethoven symphony, coming from that time, from Ludwig van's human experience. Listening to it might pass a pleasant hour but no more than that. It would be shallow. Take another example. If you were getting married and your best friend wrote an emotional, moving poem for the wedding, would it be just as moving if you found out later that it had been generated by AI in a machine? HAVE YOUR SAY: So, it's a choice. Is Garry right or am I right? Send your thoughts to echidna@ . By the way, I'm writing the Echidna for Tuesday but I promise to be fair-minded in selecting your views. SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Australian actor Julian McMahon, known for his roles in Nip/Tuck, Charmed and Home and Away, has died aged 56 after a private battle with cancer. - Israel will send a delegation to Qatar for talks on a possible Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal. - US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China about a possible TikTok deal, saying the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the short-video app. THEY SAID IT: "Don't look at me in that tone of voice." - Dorothy Parker YOU SAID IT: Rick said: "AI music is entirely about making money. Therefore, I believe it to be unnecessary. The Monkees may have acted (it's a stretch to call them actors), but they were actual musicians." Susan was more open to AI-generated music: "My eclectic music education began when I was very little, and my likes have few boundaries. My response is visceral. If it appeals, terrific. If not, I move on." Alex was worried about the implications of AI for human music-makers: "One big reason for concern about AI composition is that companies have trained their AI on songs written by humans, without compensation: AI developers have consistently massively infringed intellectual property rights, and that is not fair." Elaine said: "AI does not 'float my boat' and reading how much water (which is vital for our existence} is needed to generate this device is very worrying. With AI entering so many aspects of our lives, which is most important - humanity or AI?" This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to I want to disagree with Garry Linnell. In his last Echidna, he was of the opinion that music generated by AI was fine. "If a song created by an algorithm can break your heart or, better still, heal it, perhaps music and anything else we consider art still has a future after all in this increasingly artificial world of ours," he concluded elegantly but, in my opinion, wrongly. To my mind and ear, you can't divorce music from the human experience. It has to be authentic. A machine might write a love song, and it might be a sweet sound - but it will fall on my deaf ears. I'm not interested. Good music isn't just a string of notes. It has context and history. As an analogy, I think of the singer Joss Stone. She is phenomenally successful and belts out a good sound. She has her fans (in their millions) but soul music demands, well, soul - and that comes from an upbringing and a background. I met her as a sweet English teenager (her, not me) when she was starting out and trying to make a name for herself. It struck me then that she had a fabulous voice, throaty and growly, similar to Aretha Franklin's. The resonance was with the great soul singers of that black America where soul came from suffering. But Joss was a nice white girl from middle-class England. Aretha Franklin was born in a wooden shack in Tennessee in 1942 when black people risked death if they displeased a white man by, say, looking at him the wrong way or, even worse, at his wife. Soul music came from Aretha's experience. So, what has that got to do with artificially generated songs? The essence of music is that it needs to be authentic. It needs to reflect the human condition. It has to ring true. The Beach Boys were authentic. The Monkees were an inauthentic creation. AI does inauthentic creation at warp speed. It relies on copying the past. It relies on seeing what love songs have said and done and then varying it and replicating it. The result may be tuneful but it has no human resonance - no meaning, in the broad sense. Tell AI to write a new Bob Dylan song and the result would fool the ear - but not the mind. Musicians have always taken music from the past and developed it. Mozart did it. So did the Rolling Stones. All that is fine and creative. But AI doesn't quite do that. In a way, it mimics. It creates a kind of muzak. I'm not sure that AI could have created punk - or the later Beatles stuff, because they were both too different from previous music. One day, probably soon, someone will ask AI to create a Beethoven symphony, and the result will sound like a Beethoven symphony - but it won't be a Beethoven symphony, coming from that time, from Ludwig van's human experience. Listening to it might pass a pleasant hour but no more than that. It would be shallow. Take another example. If you were getting married and your best friend wrote an emotional, moving poem for the wedding, would it be just as moving if you found out later that it had been generated by AI in a machine? HAVE YOUR SAY: So, it's a choice. Is Garry right or am I right? Send your thoughts to echidna@ . By the way, I'm writing the Echidna for Tuesday but I promise to be fair-minded in selecting your views. SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Australian actor Julian McMahon, known for his roles in Nip/Tuck, Charmed and Home and Away, has died aged 56 after a private battle with cancer. - Israel will send a delegation to Qatar for talks on a possible Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal. - US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China about a possible TikTok deal, saying the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the short-video app. THEY SAID IT: "Don't look at me in that tone of voice." - Dorothy Parker YOU SAID IT: Rick said: "AI music is entirely about making money. Therefore, I believe it to be unnecessary. The Monkees may have acted (it's a stretch to call them actors), but they were actual musicians." Susan was more open to AI-generated music: "My eclectic music education began when I was very little, and my likes have few boundaries. My response is visceral. If it appeals, terrific. If not, I move on." Alex was worried about the implications of AI for human music-makers: "One big reason for concern about AI composition is that companies have trained their AI on songs written by humans, without compensation: AI developers have consistently massively infringed intellectual property rights, and that is not fair." Elaine said: "AI does not 'float my boat' and reading how much water (which is vital for our existence} is needed to generate this device is very worrying. With AI entering so many aspects of our lives, which is most important - humanity or AI?" This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to I want to disagree with Garry Linnell. In his last Echidna, he was of the opinion that music generated by AI was fine. "If a song created by an algorithm can break your heart or, better still, heal it, perhaps music and anything else we consider art still has a future after all in this increasingly artificial world of ours," he concluded elegantly but, in my opinion, wrongly. To my mind and ear, you can't divorce music from the human experience. It has to be authentic. A machine might write a love song, and it might be a sweet sound - but it will fall on my deaf ears. I'm not interested. Good music isn't just a string of notes. It has context and history. As an analogy, I think of the singer Joss Stone. She is phenomenally successful and belts out a good sound. She has her fans (in their millions) but soul music demands, well, soul - and that comes from an upbringing and a background. I met her as a sweet English teenager (her, not me) when she was starting out and trying to make a name for herself. It struck me then that she had a fabulous voice, throaty and growly, similar to Aretha Franklin's. The resonance was with the great soul singers of that black America where soul came from suffering. But Joss was a nice white girl from middle-class England. Aretha Franklin was born in a wooden shack in Tennessee in 1942 when black people risked death if they displeased a white man by, say, looking at him the wrong way or, even worse, at his wife. Soul music came from Aretha's experience. So, what has that got to do with artificially generated songs? The essence of music is that it needs to be authentic. It needs to reflect the human condition. It has to ring true. The Beach Boys were authentic. The Monkees were an inauthentic creation. AI does inauthentic creation at warp speed. It relies on copying the past. It relies on seeing what love songs have said and done and then varying it and replicating it. The result may be tuneful but it has no human resonance - no meaning, in the broad sense. Tell AI to write a new Bob Dylan song and the result would fool the ear - but not the mind. Musicians have always taken music from the past and developed it. Mozart did it. So did the Rolling Stones. All that is fine and creative. But AI doesn't quite do that. In a way, it mimics. It creates a kind of muzak. I'm not sure that AI could have created punk - or the later Beatles stuff, because they were both too different from previous music. One day, probably soon, someone will ask AI to create a Beethoven symphony, and the result will sound like a Beethoven symphony - but it won't be a Beethoven symphony, coming from that time, from Ludwig van's human experience. Listening to it might pass a pleasant hour but no more than that. It would be shallow. Take another example. If you were getting married and your best friend wrote an emotional, moving poem for the wedding, would it be just as moving if you found out later that it had been generated by AI in a machine? HAVE YOUR SAY: So, it's a choice. Is Garry right or am I right? Send your thoughts to echidna@ . By the way, I'm writing the Echidna for Tuesday but I promise to be fair-minded in selecting your views. SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Australian actor Julian McMahon, known for his roles in Nip/Tuck, Charmed and Home and Away, has died aged 56 after a private battle with cancer. - Israel will send a delegation to Qatar for talks on a possible Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal. - US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China about a possible TikTok deal, saying the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the short-video app. THEY SAID IT: "Don't look at me in that tone of voice." - Dorothy Parker YOU SAID IT: Rick said: "AI music is entirely about making money. Therefore, I believe it to be unnecessary. The Monkees may have acted (it's a stretch to call them actors), but they were actual musicians." Susan was more open to AI-generated music: "My eclectic music education began when I was very little, and my likes have few boundaries. My response is visceral. If it appeals, terrific. If not, I move on." Alex was worried about the implications of AI for human music-makers: "One big reason for concern about AI composition is that companies have trained their AI on songs written by humans, without compensation: AI developers have consistently massively infringed intellectual property rights, and that is not fair." Elaine said: "AI does not 'float my boat' and reading how much water (which is vital for our existence} is needed to generate this device is very worrying. With AI entering so many aspects of our lives, which is most important - humanity or AI?"
Perth Now
2 days ago
- Perth Now
Luna Blaise looks forward to 'new' challenges
Luna Blaise is in a "super exciting" phase of her career. The 23-year-old actress stars in Jurassic World Rebirth alongside the likes of Scarlett Johansson, Jonathan Bailey and Mahershala Ali, and Luna is now ready to taken on a new challenge in her career. Speaking to The Hollywood Reporter, Luna reflected: "The actual percentage of working actors in this industry is so small, so small. "For me, Luna, if I'm in that percentage, I want to do anything. I just want to have the opportunity to be on a set and to do what I love, regardless of what that is. To just have that young excitement is so refreshing, and it's so nice to have. "I can't write what I want to do next. It is not something that I know yet. Everything that's coming my way right now, it's super exciting, and I'm into everything. Honestly, it's just [me] waiting to see what actually meshes and what clicks. Whatever that may be is going to be the next opportunity that I'm so unbelievable blessed to have." Luna is now looking forward to taking on a new challenge and fully investing herself in a character. The actress said: "I think that I want to do something that is going to make me work even harder, something that I can fully invest my time and energy [into] and create a character. Because it's also crazy for actors too. You spend so much time in a role, you have to let that go. Even after all the press and after everything, you're like, OK, onto the next, let's move on. That's that. "To be able to really immerse myself in another character and to do something that's just completely different than anything I've ever done before, which Jurassic was for me at the time … I think that's just what's exciting for me, to be able to do something that I haven't done, something that's new and something that's exciting for me in my life." Meanwhile, Luna recently revealed that Scarlett urged her to "hold [her] own" in the movie business. The actress admitted that she received some valuable career advice from her 40-year-old co-star. Speaking to E! News, Luna shared: "She told me to hold your own. "Being a woman on set, being number one and being the captain of that ship, [she said to] know your worth, know you're there for a reason. You wouldn't have been given the opportunity if you weren't ready for it." Luna relished the experience of getting to know Scarlett during the shoot. The movie star said: "That's number one, wow. That's auntie. That's my girl. I'll go for her for anything."
