News Frankenstein Guillermo del Toro Calls Frankenstein‘s Limited Theatrical Release an “Easy Decision” Meanwhile, the Duffer Brothers offered a different perspective on Netflix’s theatrical release strategy By Matthew Byrd | Published on August 21, 2025 Photo: Netflix Comment 0 Share New Share Photo: Netflix In an extensive interview with Variety, Frankenstein director Guillermo del Toro discusses his incredible vision for a massive movie that he estimates ultimately cost around $120 million to make. Given the scope of that project and the director’s love for film and film culture, some were surprised to learn that Frankenstein will only receive a three-week theatrical run starting on October 17 before arriving on Netflix on November 7. It’s enough to put the movie in potential awards consideration, but it may not be enough to ensure that everyone gets to see this legendary director’s passion project on the big screen.  And while many (including the film’s co-stars Jacob Elordi and Oscar Isaac) argue that you should see the movie in theaters if at all possible, del Toro offers a slightly different perspective on the practicalities of this release strategy.  “Well, we will get the biggest theatrical release that Netflix gives its films,” says del Toro of Frankenstein. “The theatrical experience is very important. I believe in it. But if the choice is between being able to make the movie and have portions of the release be theatrical and portions be streaming or not make the movie, that’s an easy decision to make. For a filmmaker, you want to tell your stories.” Del Toro also mentions that Frankenstein can “stay in theaters longer” and that Netflix will eventually release the movie on physical media, but the core of his argument is largely unaffected by those variables. Del Toro’s suggestion that Frankenstein may not exist in this (or any) form if it wasn’t for Netflix harkens back to the reasons why so many legendary filmmakers flocked to the streaming service in the first place.  Netflix has fairly consistently offered creators ample resources to pursue their passion projects. The trade-off for those resources has long been the understanding that their projects will debut on Netflix. The streaming service has become slightly more open to limited theatrical runs over the years (largely for the aforementioned awards season considerations), but the lack of a full theatrical release has long been the devil in the details. For Guillermo del Toro, that arrangement seems easy to make peace with if it enables larger creative opportunities.  Yet, it’s very much worth mentioning that we’ve recently seen some rebellions against that arrangement. Most notably, Stranger Things creators the Duffer Brothers recently left Netflix for Paramount largely due to their desire to make projects that get a proper theatrical run. Netflix hit KPop Demon Hunters is also due to get a post-release limited theatrical run in the near future, and it’s been noted that some within Sony now regret their decision to give Netflix the rights to that project rather than trust it to receive what could have been an incredibly lucrative theatrical run.  It is fairly easy to assume that Guillermo del Toro would have chosen to give his vision for Frankenstein a full theatrical run if a studio had offered him sufficient resources to make that happen. Whether more studios decide to make more of those offers in the future may very well determine Netflix’s relationship with such creators and the future of the streaming vs. theatrical system. [end-mark] The post Guillermo del Toro Calls <i>Frankenstein</i>‘s Limited Theatrical Release an “Easy Decision” appeared first on Reactor.

Featured Essays astronomy No Two Worlds Are the Same: Planetary Diversity in SF There is no cookie cutter when it comes to celestial bodies… By James Davis Nicoll | Published on August 21, 2025 Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech I was poking through my old reviews of Reginald Bretnor symposia and encountered this firmly worded assertion: “There’s no reason fictional planets should be any less diverse than fictional characters.” I didn’t mean “should” in the sense of some moral directive—rather, it is an expression of doubt that any fictional planet plausibly comes from the same cookie cutter, any more than humans do. Consider the Galilean moons of Jupiter. At a first glance, they do seem pretty similar. They range from about 3100 km to 5300 km diameter, large enough to be considered planets if they didn’t orbit another world. Three of them are icy worlds, and all of them have surface conditions that would kill an unprotected human1. On a closer look, the Galilean moons have as many differences as they do similarities. Io is the most striking example. Because of the tidal flexing to which it has been subjected, Io has many active volcanos. If it had ever had as much ice as Europa, Callisto, and Ganymede, Io would have been rendered down to a silicate moon2. However, the other three moons also display great disparities. In fact, it is trivial to tell them apart with a glance3: The Galilean moons (Click to enlarge) Why would this be? Each moon accreted from slightly different materials, each has a different mass, a different orbit (and thus different orbital speed), the degree of tidal flexing over billions of years has been different, and so on. Basically, they had their own individual geological histories, resulting in a different geological present. We see much the same situation around the Solar System. It’s possible to lump planets into groups (the gas giants, the ice giants, minor debris) but within sets, the differences are obvious. Nobody would confuse Saturn with Jupiter, or Mars with Mercury4. Even if we suppose that a focus on shirt-sleeve-habitable worlds narrowed down fictional settings to unusually Earth-like worlds (such as in Asimov’s Empire, where only a few million of the hundred billion star systems in the Milky Way were colonized), it’s intuitively obvious that “extremely Earth-like” covers a lot ground. Earth, for example, is as Earth-like a planet as it is possible for a planet to be. Global conditions on Earth have varied from the icy cold of the Cryogenian to the sweltering heat of the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, to pick one obvious parameter. Even on specific planets in a single specific period, there’s considerable variation from location to location. You might think “Well, Calgary and Point Nemo are both on Earth, which means they’ve experienced a far more similar sequence of events than, say, Calgary and Mons Olympus.” In fact, even the least observant of tourists would spot dramatic differences between Calgary and Point Nemo as soon as they stepped out of their vehicles. What we see in on Earth in particular and the Solar System in general should be repeated on a vaster and more detailed scale throughout the Milky Way (and universe, for that matter). Each star has its own unique parameters (mass, age, original composition, orbital path through the galaxy and so on). Each world orbiting those stars will likewise. Like snowflakes, all of the worlds are subjected to the same essential forces, but the outcomes vary wildly. And why should all of that matter to a hard-working SF author whose only desire is to sell stories for money? To begin with, because taking into account that every planet is a wonderfully varied body with its own unique history might well suggest interesting story ideas. Moreover, diverse worlds provide a more textured reading experience than planets that might as well be a series of Paramount backlots. Finally, as Poul Anderson and Hal Clement’s careers made clear, detailed worldbuilding can be very fun, at least for a certain kind of author5. Maybe you aren’t one, but you probably can find one who will be thrilled to put their expertise at your disposal. Nobody would write a mystery set in “City” and nobody would write a romance focused on “Person A” and “Person B.” So why settle for bland, interchangeable planets?[end-mark] Much to the disappointment of Stanley G. Weinbaum fans. ︎I did try to determine if anyone has measured the hydrogen to deuterium ratios on Io because that would give a hint as to how much water was lost. No luck. ︎On that note, if sci fi movie makers who want to provide their alien planets with several large moons, it would awesome if it wasn’t clear that the SFX folks had just photoshopped two identical images of Earth’s moon into the sky. ︎Leaving aside the Babylon 5 tie-in novel author who knew that Mars was somehow different from Earth and guessed that it was much hotter. ︎And some tabletop roleplaying fans. Here, let me show you hundreds of Traveller subsectors I rolled up and will never use… ︎The post No Two Worlds Are the Same: Planetary Diversity in SF appeared first on Reactor.

President Donald Trump is pulling funding from public schools in California that don’t comply with his executive orders on transgenderism. “Any California school district that doesn’t adhere to our transgender policies will not be funded,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Last summer, the California Legislature passed a law requiring school staff to hide a student’s gender identity from his or her parents. California has also defied the executive order prohibiting boys and men who identify as girls and women from participating in female sports. At the end of June, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services notified California it must remove from federally funded sex education curricula all gender ideology references that “indoctrinate” students. On Thursday, HHS terminated California’s Personal Responsibility Education Program grant after the state refused to remove radical gender ideology from the federally funded education program to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections in students. The post Trump to Defund Schools That Trans Children in Deep Blue State appeared first on The Daily Signal.

An appeals court threw out the $355 million fraud penalty against President Donald Trump on Thursday. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York found the penalty excessive in violation of the Constitution. However, the court upheld last year’s ruling finding Trump, his two oldest sons, and his business liable for 10 years of business fraud. In February 2024, a New York judge ordered Trump and his companies to pay more than $300 million in penalties after finding that he engaged in fraud by padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers. Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum is now over $515 million. “While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of the opinions shaping the court’s ruling. New York Attorney General Letitia James brought the suit on behalf of the state. She is currently under investigation for mortgage fraud allegations. During Trump’s first term, James campaigned on a promise to investigate the president, calling him a “con man” and ?carnival barker.” This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates. The post BREAKING: Court Throws Out Multi-Million-Dollar Fraud Penalty Against Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Efforts to implement California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code continue to face resistance from both the tech industry and digital civil liberties groups, who argue that the law’s restrictions violate constitutional protections and would compel sweeping surveillance and censorship online. The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represents companies including Google, Amazon, Meta, and eBay, recently filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case NetChoice v. Bonta. Stephanie Joyce, the group’s senior vice president and director of its litigation center, condemned the legislation in blunt terms: “The Constitution prohibits the government from dictating what lawful content readers can see, and it extends that protection regardless of the reader’s age. Though well-intentioned, California’s internet age restriction law is unconstitutional, and the court of appeals should affirm the decision to block it.” The case marks the second time this legal clash has reached the Ninth Circuit. Previously, the court blocked only a portion of the law and returned the rest for further review. Now, with renewed scrutiny, the court could determine whether the entire statute fails to withstand constitutional challenge. NetChoice, an industry coalition that includes many of the same members as the CCIA, has led the charge against a wave of so-called “age assurance” laws. These policies would require digital platforms to verify the ages of users and potentially restrict minors’ access to content deemed unsuitable. But free speech advocates warn the consequences would be broader and more dangerous than legislators admit. Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) have also weighed in with their own amicus brief, arguing that the law’s age estimation mandates undermine essential First Amendment rights. “CDT and EFF’s brief argues that the appeals court should uphold the injunctions solely on the basis of its overbroad, unconstitutional age verification requirement because that requirement is not severable from other provisions and should doom the entire statute.” The brief warns that such mandates not only chill access to lawful speech but also erode online anonymity and place users’ personal data at risk. They also emphasize that minors’ ability to engage freely online is a critical part of their development and civic participation. “Social media helps minors develop their own ideas, learn to express themselves, and engage productively with others in our democratic public sphere,” the brief states. The implications of California’s law reach far beyond child safety rhetoric. If upheld, the statute could force platforms to filter or suppress lawful content out of fear of liability, eroding the open nature of the internet. Under the guise of protecting children, the law opens the door to sweeping surveillance of all users and potentially paves the way for viewpoint-based content moderation by government proxy. Supporters of the code frame it as a child-safety initiative. But opponents argue that, constitutionally and practically, it amounts to compelled censorship and a rollback of long-standing protections for online speech. With NetChoice v. Bonta back before the Ninth Circuit, the future of digital rights in California, and potentially nationwide, may hinge on how far the courts are willing to let the state go in policing online content. Read the amicus briefs here, here, and here. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post California Content Law Design Code Faces Free Speech Clash appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

NBC Wanted You to See the Violence in Trump's System

BREAKING: NY Appellate Court Tosses Letitia James' Judgment Against Trump

Gavin Newsom wants to be the new Donald Trump. No, California’s governor isn’t moving to the right or cracking down on illegal immigration — quite the opposite. On Monday, the White House blasted Newsom for continuing to offer commercial drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens like Harjinder Singh, the trucker accused of killing three people while attempting an unlawful U-turn on the Florida Turnpike last week. “The illegal alien is an Indian national who was granted a commercial driver’s license by the so-called ‘sanctuary state’ of California,” the White House said in a press release. Newsom is the anti-Trump as far as the safety of America’s roads and integrity of our immigration system are concerned. But the governor has been quicker than most Democrats to realize it takes a Trump to compete with Trump — someone willing to play hardball politics the same way Trump does and projects an aura of confidence like the president’s. Newsom even understands the need to reach Trump voters, which he’s tried to do by featuring MAGA luminaries like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on his personal podcast. That displeased his fellow Dems — but what he’s up to now is making them much happier. Newsom’s current crusade is to scrap California’s independent redistricting process in order to gerrymander more seats for his party. The governor says it’s retaliation for Texas redistricting that favors Republicans — though Democrats already have notoriously unfair congressional maps in places like Illinois and Maryland. For that matter, California’s present system, controlled by a commission with equal representation of Democrats, Republicans and independents, already allocates more seats to Democrats than the proportional strength of the two parties in the Golden State would suggest is just. California in fact has more registered Republicans than any other state in the nation, though Florida is catching up. There are almost 5.8 million Republicans in California, amounting to more than 25% of registered voters — but the GOP holds only nine of the state’s 52 congressional seats. Newsom’s scheme would slash the GOP’s representation down to four seats. It’s grossly unfair to the people of California, about a quarter of whom are Republicans, but Newsom is doing what’s best for his 2028 presidential ambitions, regardless of whether it’s good for the state. He wants to be seen as the only Democrat who can stand up to the president. “Donald Trump, you have poked the bear and we will punch back,” he said at a recent rally. Most Californians oppose Newsom’s stunt — by a two-thirds majority, according to a Politico poll. The survey found only 36% of voters support Newsom’s attempt to take redistricting power from the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission and give it back to the Democrat-dominated state legislature. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who as governor back in 2008 led the campaign to pass the referendum that created the independent commission, is making obvious his ire at Newsom’s plot: “F*** the politicians. Terminate gerrymandering,” read a T-shirt worn by the actor-turned-politician in a recent Instagram post. That slogan speaks for millions of Californians, but Newsom isn’t worried. Even if voters reject his proposal in a landslide, if it reaches their ballots this November, Newsom still gets to look tough in the eyes of Democrats nationwide. Image is now everything for the telegenic governor. On Elon Musk’s X app — the social network formerly known as Twitter — Newsom fans have been pushing memes comparing his suave style as a young man to JD Vance’s geeky appearance in high-school photos. Another meme, trolling for racial reactions, juxtaposes a picture of Newsom with his blonde wife and four flaxen-haired children with a snapshot of Vance and his Indian American wife with their kids. The not-so-subtle message: Newsom is the guy supposedly racist Trump supporters should really admire. Too many progressives evidently think they can indulge in a little “ironic” race-baiting themselves, as long as they’re promoting a Democratic politician. The memes, like the aggressive redistricting, are Team Newsom’s idea of fighting fire with fire, using tactics as provocative as Trump’s own to challenge the president and set the stage for a 2028 contest with Vance. But Newsom’s attempts to one-up Trump are doubly unsuccessful. The memes only make Newsom look worse: pretentious in high school, while Vance was a normal kid, while the lovely portrait of Newsom’s family — positive by itself — loses its appeal when it’s used to make an ugly racial comment. As for redistricting, Newsom and his party have a bigger problem than the maps Republicans draw in red states. Under Newsom, California is hemorrhaging population and is on track to lose 3-5 congressional seats after the next census, while Republican-leaning states like Florida and Texas are gaining people and representation. In the long run, Democratic gerrymandering can’t make up for the demographic consequences of Democratic governments like Newsom’s. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com.

With The View on hiatus until its September return for season 29, ABC News co-host Ana Navarro seemed to be getting a little antsy. Instead of just enjoying her vacation with a glass of wine, Navarro uncorked a series of Instagram posts and whined about First Lady Melania Trump’s letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, pleading with him to think of the children in Ukraine and end the war. Of course, Navarro exploited it as an opportunity to feed the Trump haters in her comment section. Navarro took tremendous issue with the First Lady trying to appeal to Putin by invoking the dignity and innocence of the children of Ukraine.  “You all, this falls under the category of stuff that’s so hypocritical you almost can’t believe it,” she decried while on an apparent Mediterranean vacation in Greece (judging by her other Instagram posts). In the letter, Melania wrote “that each generation’s descendants begin their lives with a purity – and innocence which stands above geography, government, and ideology.” Adding: “in protecting the innocence of these children, you will do more than serve Russia alone – you serve humanity itself. Such a bold idea transcends all human division, and you, Mr. Putin, are fit to implement this vision with a stroke of the pen today.” Conflating all immigrants with those in the country illegally, Navarro demanded that Melania “Think about what her husband, what Donald Trump, is doing to the children of immigrants in America, and to U.S. citizen children of immigrants."     "How many of those children are living with the fear of their parents being dragged through the streets of America? Their car windows smashed in? Their parents beaten by masked men and disappeared?" she fear mongered. Navarro continued her unhinged rant: How about the children all over the world who are not receiving U.S. aid because her husband's government decided we shouldn't be feeding starving children all over the world? How about all those kids? So yeah, it strikes me ridiculously hypocritical that Melania Trump is telling Putin to preserve the innocence of Ukrainian children – yay for her. That’s a good thing. But, you know, maybe she should turn around and say the exact same thing to her husband, because there are children in America crying, suffering, going to bed in fear, returning to homes that are abandoned and empty, not knowing where their next meal is coming from because of what her husband is doing. “Start a little closer to home, girl,” she concluded. The rage-filled ABC co-host made a follow up post featuring an image of the letter. “Don’t children of immigrants, children who often work side-by-side in the fields with their parents, don’t they deserve to hold on to their innocence?” she wrote in the caption, seemingly having no issue with exploiting immigrant child labor. She also took a shot at the First Lady’s marriage. “So Melania, it’s good you write a letter to Putin. Now, how about you write one to the man you sleep with…oh, wait.” It’s worth noting that Navarro once bragged about how easy it would be to cheat on her husband. If she really want to, of course.     In a post where she was showing off a salad, Navarro spouted off about how she “just read that whole sale prices vegetable are 40 percent higher in the United States.” “You know what folks, fuck around and find out,” she declared, subjecting her fellow restaurant goers to her diatribe. Those posts were made while Navarro was on a Mediterranean vacation that many, if not most Americans couldn’t afford. But she was suffering from such a strong case of Trump derangement syndrome that she seemingly couldn’t just enjoy it.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has positioned herself as a leader in exposing how American intelligence officials have long evaded accountability for misleading the nation — not just about Russiagate, but also into war.Gabbard indicated in an August interview with New York Post columnist Miranda Devine that a reckoning is under way; however, there remain challenges — including some posed by antagonistic holdovers from previous administrations."When you talk about how do we change this, we have to recognize that both of them — [ex-CIA Director] John Brennan and [ex-DNI] James Clapper, as leaders in the intelligence community — they have their own disciples," said Gabbard. "They have a lot of their own people that they brought in with them or that they mentored in a mirroring of their own image, and many of those people still exist within the intelligence community now."Gabbard made abundantly clear to the "bad actors" on Wednesday that she means business.Hours after announcing that she had revoked the security clearances of 37 current and former officials over their involvement in the Russiagate scandal, Gabbard revealed that she plans to radically shake up her agency."Over the last 20 years, ODNI has become bloated and inefficient, and the intelligence community is rife with abuse of power, unauthorized leaks of classified intelligence, and politicized weaponization of intelligence," Gabbard said in a statement.RELATED: Tulsi Gabbard hammers James Clapper, revealing Russia hoax wasn't his first major deception Photographer: Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images "ODNI and the IC must make serious changes to fulfill its responsibility to the American people and the U.S. Constitution by focusing on our core mission: find the truth and provide objective, unbiased, timely intelligence to the president and policymakers," the DNI continued.To this end, Gabbard indicated that she is working on "ODNI 2.0": "the start of a new era focused on serving our country, fulfilling our core national security mission with excellence, always grounded in the U.S. Constitution, and ensuring the safety, security, and freedom of the American people."One of the key differences between ODNI 1.0 and ODNI 2.0 is that the new version will be a great deal lighter.'Ending the weaponization of intelligence and holding bad actors accountable are essential to begin to earn the American people's trust.'Gabbard plans to can over 40% of the workforce at her agency by the end of fiscal year 2025 — layoffs her office indicated will save taxpayers over $700 million annually and improve the ODNI's efficacy "as the central hub for intelligence integration, strategic guidance, and oversight over the Intelligence Community."Since assuming the role of director of national intelligence, Gabbard has already reduced the ODNI by nearly 30%, canning over 500 staffers.Blaze Media contributor and investigative reporter Steve Baker noted that the personnel at these intelligence agencies have "been overwhelmingly bad guys.""We're talking about a massively large percentage of the intelligence services," Baker said. "The lying employees are there to subvert the America First and Trump agenda and are actively doing so."Baker suggested that one of the reasons this has taken so long is that before cutting deeper, Gabbard, like other Trump agency heads, first had to deal with obstructionist holdovers in more senior positions.While these layoffs may help maximize efficiency at the ODNI, Baker acknowledged that "there's a lot of casualties of war in this," particularly when it comes to newer employees on probationary status.In addition to trimming the fat, the DNI is effectively closing a number of subagencies that have become "redundant."A fact sheet from the ODNI indicates that the ODNI's Foreign Malign Influence Center now faces the same fate as its congressionally mandated partner organization at the State Department, the Global Engagement Center — the rebrand of which Secretary of State Marco Rubio closed in April.The ODNI noted that the FMIC earned extinction when it was "used by the previous administration to justify the suppression of free speech and to censor political opposition."RELATED: Tulsi Gabbard scores huge win for Americans' data privacy against foreign governments Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesThe National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center and the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center have similarly been targeted in the restructuring and deemed redundant.According to the ODNI, "descoping" or "refocusing" these three subagencies alone will save taxpayers $46 million a year.After a determination that that the "unique intelligence-related capability at [the National Intelligence University] is narrow in scope and does not require a stand-alone university," the school's intelligence-related programs are being transferred to the National Defense University for an estimated savings of $40 million annually.Gabbard is also closing the ODNI's Reston, Virginia, campus and moving the National Intelligence Council to the main ODNI campus in nearby McClean.The ODNI noted further that Gabbard already removed the partisan holdovers on the External Research Council for leaking classified information to reporters.When asked to comment on whether suspected "disciples" or bad actors were among those now facing termination, a spokesperson for the ODNI told Blaze News that 'offices were refocused for a number of reasons including because they 'may have been used to weaponize intelligence against Americans' and were used 'by the deep state to push a partisan agenda.'""Ending the weaponization of intelligence and holding bad actors accountable are essential to begin to earn the American people's trust, which as long been eroded," Gabbard explained.Blaze News has reached out to the ODNI for additional comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!