Latest news with #WorldWideWeb
Perth Now
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Perth Now
'Let's make a new Groundhog Day...' Jon Watts calls for Hollywood to stop "ripping" off original films
Jon Watts calls for Hollywood filmmakers to create new movies instead of 'ripping' off successful films. The 44-year-old director admitted he is frustrated at a lack of creativity and original ideas in Hollywood and believes "medium scale" films should stop looking at the stories which have been successful in the past and presenting them in a different way. Asked what he would change about how Hollywood makes movies and TV shows, Watts told "I wish there were more original movies in theatres. Original movies in, like, a medium scale. "We've built this system where you have these giant tentpole movies that are so expensive that people feel like they have to be based on something that you already recognise. They can't be too risky. "I think that's created a hole in the middle of interesting, new movies. Like, we're still ripping off Groundhog Day. Let's make a new Groundhog Day. "Let's make new medium-sized ideas that get everyone excited about going to the movies again." Even though the Spider-Man: No Way Home director agrees that film studios have to rely on previous successes to "make enough money", he thinks there is always space for fresh ideas. He said "You do have the big things that you rely on to make sure that you make enough money, but at some point, you're going to run out of things to remake, and then you're just regurgitating the same stuff over and over again." Watts is also concerned that films have to "do great immediately" on release instead of being able to slowly build box office success. Asked about Pixar's Elio, which was branded a flop after taking just under $21 million at the US box office in its opening weekend, he said: "I haven't seen it. It looks really good. Maybe it will just take some time. "That's the other thing that I think is stressful in Hollywood right now is things have to do great immediately. They're not given the space to live in theatres and grow and build an audience over time. Used to, movies would start lower and then slowly accumulate over time. "Now, if it isn't a huge hit immediately, people will start talking about how it's a huge flop, and that's not necessarily true." With more people beginning to use artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in creative work, it is not something Watts will do because he loves working with "human beings". Asked if he has concerns about the growth of AI over the next 10 years, Watts said: "I don't want to wade into it too deeply, but I think the first thing that people should think about when it comes to AI is that they should stop calling everything AI. "There are so many facets to this conversation. It feels like back when people would talk about 'the internet,' and they were like, 'How is the internet going to change everything? How is the World Wide Web going to affect politics?' "AI is a very complex thing that can be used in very different ways. I think the first thing everyone should do is be a lot more educated when they talk about it, so it doesn't get oversimplified. "Personally, I don't mess around with it. I like the human beings that I work with, and I'm not interested in replacing any of them. I look forward to working with human beings. So, right now, I'm personally learning about it, but I'm staying away from using it."
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
The internet was once my favourite thing – now it fills me with dread
The early internet felt vast, an endless sprawl of personal websites, niche message boards, blogs, and experimental digital spaces. It did not feel like the simple tool it was, but rather an expanding landscape that would lead into interesting and unexpected corners. It encouraged and rewarded curiosity, which the modern web actively attempts to discourage. Now, most of our conversations in person mirror the topics of the internet, forming a large part of our discourse, but it is all designed to make us angry, anxious, and consumed with dread. And instead of the internet helping us to find a common consensus across country, culture, and creed, it is now more likely to be used as a weapon of destabilisation. The internet has become too powerful in the material world, and we have allowed that power to be concentrated in all the wrong, harmful places. Read more: This extreme metal album blew up over a weekend – now it's accused of being AI After the dot-com market bubble dramatically burst in the 2000s, when early internet start-ups were over-valued on the impression that they would somehow magically transform into the cash cows of the future, corporate entities were much wary of investing in the commercial side of the internet. The inherent value of the World Wide Web remained with its users and what they had to contribute, which lent itself rather well to the exchange of information and self-expression. But it wouldn't be long until the burgeoning players of Silicon Valley would fully commercialise the internet. To achieve this, it had to make the internet accessible to a broader audience, including those in the mass middle around the world, beyond the core usage of computer geeks and young tech adapters. Sites like Facebook instituted rigid user interface designs, trading personality and self-expression for ease of use and control. Amazon and other marketplace websites shifted our economic activity drastically, where online order and delivery became the default for many, over the humble last breath of the brick-and-mortar shop. Read more: When you die, are you 'unalived'? The strange world of social media algospeak The internet has greatly expanded in its user base, adding several billion people to its ranks since those halcyon days of yore, but the actual world of the internet has only gotten smaller, more sanitised, and with tighter control from increasingly powerful and omnipresent corporate entities. Now, internet use can be conveniently reduced to several websites, owned by the same group of tech oligarchs, with billions of users at the whim of their wealth-amassing desires. The modern internet is not only controlled by a select few tech corporations, but also actively designed to make any alternatives invisible. Before, when a website became unfit for purpose, its users would migrate to the next better alternative. That is not an option anymore, and we are stuck using the same platforms ad nauseum despite how much they change and mutate away from their central premise and appeal. Facebook would rather prioritise a deceptive AI image designed to farm engagement than a post from a friend or loved one, and it's all within Facebook and its parent company Meta's financial interests to do it that way. The modern internet is designed to make alternatives to platforms such as those owned by Meta invisible (Image: PA) The shift to commodify the internet, a place of commerce and business rather than information, has only worsened the web in every aspect, to where services that were once perfect in their purpose turned for the worse and stayed there. Google, once the crown jewel of search engines, often struggles to produce relevant search results (its one job), boosting those who possess the SEO wherewithal to the top. It has more recently added AI to the top of results in an effort to directly answer any queries – the problems being that it often gives incorrect information and diverts much-needed survival traffic from bespoke websites where the information originates and lives. Read more: TikTokifying Billie Holiday surely must be against the law Even social media feeds and their algorithms have drastically changed in recent years, and all due to an incessant need to squeeze what they can from massive universal user bases. What once displayed postings from people you are personally connected with in a linear timeline (thus fulfilling the whole social aspect of social media) now works on entirely different criteria. It is now a crucial part of Silicon Valley to leave you angry, defensive, and yet still happy to keep coming back for more. Large tech companies know exactly how dopamine hits the brain, and are happy to exploit that for their own gain. Then again, I remember being called a goat-f***ing c*** for saying the second Modest Mouse album is better than the first. So maybe the early internet was not all cybernetic sunshine and rainbows, but even an over-the-top insult over a minor music take still felt a little more human, and a little more real. Funny that.
Buzz Feed
4 days ago
- General
- Buzz Feed
People Share The Propaganda They'll Never Fall For
With the amount of information we're fed regularly, the lines between fact and fiction seem more blurred than ever. Despite having news at the click of a touchscreen button, people are getting duped regularly. However, even before the rise of social media, society had managed to disseminate propaganda to the people, with lasting effects that persisted even after their debunking. Take orange juice, for example. It became a breakfast staple marketed with immense nutritional value; however, in recent years, there has been a decline in orange juice sales, largely due to experts' warnings about its high sugar content and other factors. In that spirit, a viral thread on the r/AskReddit sub has been making the rounds where people are naming the "propaganda" that they'll never fall for again. Some responses are tongue-in-cheek. Others are alarmingly real, but all of them reflect just how powerful and pervasive persuasion can be when it's dressed up as the truth. Here's what people had to say: "HR is on your side." —Distinct-Cut-6368 "The US is the hero of every war they take part in." —anti_caws "Generational and cultural divide. It all boils down to class warfare." "That Iranian women are less educated, when 70% of STEM grads in Iran are women." —Vivid-Stuff-6810 "Epstein died by suicide." "AI removes any critical thought or resourcefulness when it comes to knowledge and socializing (minus the way the user has to engage with it). It's something that has been forced upon society, and similarly to social media, it encourages a pipeline of tailored digestible surface-level content, isolation, and constant dopamine reward." "It's almost the same equivalency as infomercials. We've become less social with society and use AI entirely as a prop. Bots infiltrate what little is left of the World Wide Web, so much so that the dialogue created between other bots or AI influences the force-fed pipeline algorithm. Sure, anything can be a tool, but flint and fire sparked flame, which benefits society. Welcoming AI without questioning it will have serious consequences IMO."—gaptoothgoth "Trickle-down economics." "Being religious. It means nothing more than believing in magic and make-believe. 'Church-going,' 'person of faith,' 'God-fearing,' all meaningless adjectives that say nothing of a person's character." —1Negative_Person "Limited sales. It's never limited, it always comes back around." —Beer-Milkshakes "The gold in Fort Knox" —Prestigious-Pace-273 "Hard work is its own reward" "Dems are good, Republicans are bad. Republicans are good, Dems are bad." "All politicians line their pockets and don't give a damn about the average person. It's wild that for the last eight years, Americans have been crying about left and right, but still choose sides. If every American actually chose the best candidate without left or right BS, it would be a better country. We need more parties. The elephant and donkey are whack."—Slow-Office-8106 "That Israel is defending itself." —mclarensmps "That the big push for immigration into the EU was the left's fault. It wasn't. The immigration happened because big corporations realized that homegrown (white) workers were being paid too much and knew their rights better than THEY thought was appropriate." "So they imported a bunch of workers who didn't speak a lick of the local language so they could be fooled into signing ANY contract, and they were from poor countries and could be made to work for a pittance. The RICH caused Europe's race problems, not the left. And now what, you're gonna 'remigrate' all those people back to their home countries? These people were literally born and raised in Europe at this point. They're second-generation Europeans. They've never BEEN in their 'origin countries' before. To repatriate them would be inhuman."—EchoEnvironmental871 "That Trump was the pro-peace candidate." "Even putting aside this week's events, it was such a transparent piece of propaganda if you just looked at his first term record: destroying the nuclear deal in 2017, then assassinating an Iranian general in 2020, and also increasing drone strikes by 400% over Obama. It was a bunch of lies promoted by idiot podcast bros to get ignorant voters to vote for Trump. "—Global_Channel1511 "That budget cuts are for cutting waste and fraud. We all know that they don't care one bit about savings and that 'fraud' is code for 'anything the public benefits from,' not cushy government contracts and pork." —kokopuff1013 "Anything MAGA-related. I spent the first part of my adulthood undoing the propaganda of being raised fundamentalist, I'm never going back." —liberal_texan "Advertising is actually a good thing, and you're a bad person for using AdBlock. No, it's a legalized scam, and the only people who benefit from it are the advertising companies themselves (who are parasites). Ads tend to be invasive, and you can't risk accidentally clicking on something that's hiding an ad containing a virus or something, so you need to protect yourself. Not doing so is just willfully ignorant and blind loyalty to capitalism." —meeseekstodie137 "That I need a VPN because YouTubers tell me my data will be stolen without one." "Corporations are people." —trustintruth "I refuse to believe that I need a brand new SUV to feel 'safe' on the road." And finally, "Even if you don't like actual onions, you need them in every other dish for the taste they give off to the other ingredients. Get out of my food, you disgusting onions!" —JellyOpen8349 What's a piece of "propaganda" you'll never fall for? Share it in the comments.
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Diddy, Lively vs Baldoni, Depp vs Heard: How real-life celebrity scandals becoming prime entertainment
Celebrity scandals are no longer just guilty pleasures or viral curiosities; they're emerging as a full-fledged sub-genre, blending the magnetism of fame with the grit of real-life drama and the sheen of Hollywood productions. These series dive deep into the undercurrents of stardom, where glamour meets gossip, and truth is stranger than tabloid tales. From Britney Spears ' fight for freedom to Pamela Anderson reclaiming her narrative, and Johnny Depp and Amber Heard battling it out in court, these documentaries are rewriting the way we consume celebrity culture. Do these shows truly create a new space within entertainment? We asked filmmaker Saum Shipra Singh and he explained, "What once lived in the pages of gossip magazines or daytime talk shows is now being reimagined as high-quality, investigative storytelling. Shows like 'Framing Britney Spears 'or 'Pamela, A Love Story' go beyond surface-level drama, they unpack the human cost of fame, touching on mental health, media ethics, and systemic mistreatment. Audiences are tuning in not just for the scandal, but to understand the larger truth behind it." These shows go beyond surface-level drama, they unpack the human cost of fame Saum Shipra Singh In a time where the line between celebrity and fans is blurring, this new wave of documentary storytelling is proving that fame isn't just glamorous, it's also complicated and we're all hooked in for the ride. Scandals To Streaming Gold If viewership equalled money, this docuseries minted a fortune. What began as deep dives into headline-making scandals has exploded into a streaming juggernaut, with viewers tuning in for all the drama. Within just five days of its release, 'Depp vs. Heard' stormed into 1.1 million U.S. households, igniting fierce global debates across dinner tables, social media and the World Wide Web. Clocking in at 16.2 million views and topping the platform's English-language charts, the series dominated conversations. And while it pulled in a jaw-dropping 39.5 million viewing hours, it still trailed behind Netflix's true-crime favourite 'Murdaugh Murders: A Southern Scandal', which edged ahead with 40.1 million hours in the same timeframe. Depp v. Heard | Official Trailer | Netflix But the real game-changer? 'Framing Britney Spears'. Dropping in 2021 like a cultural thunderclap, the FX/Hulu documentary didn't just break records—it broke open a national conversation. It captivated audiences across the US, UK, and Australia, and sparked a tidal wave of social media chatter. More than just a viewing event, it became a cultural reckoning, reviving public interest in Britney's conservatorship battle. Framing Britney Spears | Trailer | Sky Documentaries Another series 'Britney vs. Spears' followed suit, pulling in an average of 3.8 million viewers on its first airing and further fuelling the momentum of Britney's fight for freedom. Even 'Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich' found its dark allure too compelling to ignore, topping trending charts and dominating social media conversations and various other conspiracies, even without the exact viewership figures being revealed. Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich | Official Trailer | Netflix Understanding the Appeal Star Power and Emotional Connection Audiences often arrive with an existing emotional investment in public figures like Johnny Depp or Britney Spears. These documentaries deepen that connection by peeling back the facade and exploring the personal, vulnerable and painfully complex stories behind the headlines. The Role of Social Media The digital era has supercharged the visibility and discourse around celebrity scandals. The Depp v. Heard trial exemplified this shift, becoming what many dubbed 'the world's first trial by TikTok.' Hashtags such as #JusticeForJohnny accumulated over 20 billion views—more than double the 10 billion for #JusticeForHeard. This online traction significantly influenced public perception and was later mirrored in the Netflix docuseries. Narrative vs Insider Collaboration Many of these documentaries are shaped by the direct involvement of the celebrities themselves or those close to them. In Framing Britney Spears, director Samantha Stark immersed herself in Spears's story for over a year, including corresponding with the pop star. 'We can't deny what came out of her mouth or how she feels,' Stark said. More Than One-Offs What was once seen as occasional deep-dives into celebrity controversy is fast becoming a growing sub-genre. In Dispute: Lively v Baldoni: This documentary has sparked early interest due to the high-profile legal drama surrounding the two actors. Depp v. Heard: A found-footage-style juggernaut that reassembles courtroom footage with social media commentary, offering a meta take on the trial's cultural impact. Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy: As serious allegations emerge, Combs is reportedly the subject of an upcoming docuseries—paralleling his ongoing fall from grace in the public eye. Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich: A chilling exposé that peels back the layers of abuse, power, and elite complicity surrounding one of the most notorious scandals of the decade. Framing Britney Spears: The Free Britney movement-turned-media moment tracks Britney Spears' battle against her conservatorship and the fan-led activism that helped turn the tide. Bad Boy Billionaires: A gripping series that dives into the scandals of India's most controversial business magnates, revealing tales of fraud, corruption, and unchecked ambition. A Director's Creative Pivot As these docuseries continue to dominate streaming platforms, questions are being raised about their intent and impact. Are these documentaries offering meaningful insight, or merely capitalising on public curiosity? According to Saum Shipra Singh, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. "These documentaries can do both," Singh explains. "Some of them help the public understand serious issues such as mental health problems, media pressure, unfair treatment of women, or abuse of power in the entertainment world. They may also allow celebrities to explain their side of the story, especially if they were misunderstood in the past." However, he cautions that not all titles approach their subject matter with equal depth or integrity. 'Some documentaries may focus more on shocking details than on real understanding. In such cases, they mainly try to attract viewers rather than educate them. So, while some of these documentaries are meaningful, others may only be using public curiosity to make money.' This tightrope between ethical storytelling and sensationalism is something directors themselves grapple with. Emma Cooper, director of Depp v. Heard, deliberately chose to avoid using expert commentary in order to preserve the raw, public-facing experience of the trial. 'I found myself compulsively watching the live feed, and then discussing it with my friends, and looking at what everybody was saying on social,' Cooper told Variety. 'The more I looked into it, I felt like we were in a cultural and social phenomenon. As a documentary maker, I felt there was an opportunity for me to reflect how I was feeling while I was watching it, and I felt that it was a real moment in time.' Cooper, who also helmed The Mystery of Marilyn Monroe: The Unheard Tapes and The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, acknowledged the polarised reaction to her work. 'You know, it's a balanced level of hate,' she said with a laugh. 'My intention, right from the start, was to make a cogent and interesting reflection of what happened without using interviews or experts...' Similarly, Britney vs. Spears director Erin Lee Carr centred her work around emotional resonance, stating that 'the responses… have been emotional, with viewers reacting strongly.' Samantha Stark, who directed the critically acclaimed Framing Britney Spears, took a fact-driven approach to telling the singer's story which helped ignite the #FreeBritney movement. Speaking to The Hollywood Reporter, Stark said, 'What I hope our documentary and our reporting is doing is bolstering her story with facts, with care and with a new viewpoint... I think Britney is not a victim, not a small person. I think she would have come forward and said this without the documentary. But I hope the documentary showed her that people believed her.' Despite her confidence in the work, Stark admitted to The Hindu, 'I was feeling very panicked and terrified... Making something without her participation was very strange for me; I have a lot of internal conflict about it.' She added that the team feared backlash but was 'surprised' by the overwhelmingly positive response. As this genre continues to evolve, Singh believes it's also reshaping how celebrities handle their personal controversies. 'The rise of these shows is changing how celebrities deal with scandals,' he notes. 'Many celebrities now choose to tell their own stories through documentaries, rather than through public relations or news interviews. By doing this, they can control the story and protect their image.' This shift in strategy is influencing how scandals are perceived and how they're managed in real-time. 'Since celebrities know their actions could later be shown in a documentary,' Singh adds, 'they may become more careful in public or plan better responses to problems. In some cases, this may help prevent bad behaviour—or at least reduce its impact.' As audiences grow increasingly fascinated by the intersection of fame, failure, and fallout, celebrity scandal docuseries are no longer mere side attractions but are shaping a new cultural frontier. These narratives are challenging how we perceive public figures and the media machines behind them.
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Amazon is selling a 'lightweight' $1,399 Lenovo laptop for $399, and shoppers say it's a 'quality notebook'
TheStreet aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission. Amazon is selling a 'lightweight' $1,399 Lenovo laptop for $399, and shoppers say it's a 'quality notebook' originally appeared on TheStreet. When it comes to laptops, there are a few key factors to consider. One of them is storage, so you can keep your projects and documents safely secured. Another is processing power, so you can get work done and have fun online without lag or error. The Lenovo V15 G2 Laptop has all of that and more, and Amazon is offering it for a hefty discount. Typically listed for $1,399, this 15.6-inch screen is now on sale for just $399. That means you'll get 32 gigabytes of DDR4 RAM and one terabyte of SSD storage for a whopping 71% price cut. The compact computer has plenty of other features in addition to its vast storage capacity and advanced processor, making it great for anyone working or playing on the World Wide Web. This particular Lenovo features an Intel Celeron N4500 processor, which allows you to effortlessly multitask between multimedia projects and web browsing on numerous tabs. You can easily navigate through all of that via the Windows 11 Professional operating system, shown with UHD graphics on the 15.6-inch display. The 32-gigabyte DDR4 RAM means you'll have plenty of memory while browsing online, plus the one-terabyte SSD storage gives you more than enough space to save your biggest projects and favorite photos. All in all, the Lenovo is a well-rounded gadget that can help you get your online work done with Amazon customers spoke highly of the V15 G12 laptop. One shopper said they were "very pleased" with the Lenovo for having "all the local storage" they needed. Another shopper called the V15 "sleek and lightweight" with a "comfortable and quiet" keyboard and "very fast" processor. A different customer shared that Lenovo combined "reliability, good performance, and a solid design" to make a "versatile" gadget and a "quality notebook." The Lenovo V15 G2 Laptop is a great option for those seeking a straightforward and effective computer for both home and on-the-go use. It features a powerful processor, plenty of built-in storage space, and a design ready to roll with you when you're out and about. This Amazon deal is impossible to ignore, so grab it before the savings disappear. Amazon is selling a 'lightweight' $1,399 Lenovo laptop for $399, and shoppers say it's a 'quality notebook' first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 25, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 25, 2025, where it first appeared.
