Tag: HollywoodReporter

The Fast & Furious franchise may be stuck in neutral, but Louis Leterrier is charging full speed ahead. 

The French filmmaker behind Fast X and its long-gestating follow-up, Fast Forever, is releasing the genre-blending thriller, The Last House, on Aug. 7 via Netflix. He’s also about to wrap production on a sci-fi action thriller called Liminal for Apple. On top of those features, the fourth season of Lupin, the Netflix series he co-showruns, drops in October. He even launched a production company known as Carrousel Studios with his Lupin lead, Omar Sy, and The Last House EP, Thomas Brenski. 

The Last House chronicles the Delgado family — led by Wagner Moura’s Jason and Greta Lee’s Ann — as they try to raise their two children inside their house that has been mysteriously sealed shut, leaving them with no way out. One might assume that a film set almost entirely within a single residential home would be far easier to pull off than the globe-trotting spectacle of the Fast franchise and the constant management of its massive movie star ensemble. Yet Leterrier says the genre exercise about coexistence and mercy was the most challenging film of his career.

“The Last House was the most difficult film I’ve ever done. You have no idea. It was awful,” Leterrier tells The Hollywood Reporter. “I tried to make everything practical. We built a real house … and a whole neighborhood on stage. And as the movie evolves, the house evolves. So it was very technical and very difficult, but I loved every second of it. I love it now [that we’re done]. Every day, the cast and crew looked at each other and were like, ‘Oof, this is a tough one.’”

As for the 11th, and series-capping, installment of the Fast Saga, Leterrier insists he’s still attached regardless of his busy schedule. As has been widely reported, he confirms that Fast Forever’s budget remains the biggest hurdle. 

When Furious 7 (2015) and The Fast of the Furious (2017) became billion–dollar grossers — largely due to China driving nearly $400 million-worth of ticket sales — the creative team continued to up the ante, adding more and more ambitious sequences, as well as star power. However, the last three entries, including the spinoff Hobbs & Shaw, have regressed to an average around $730 million worldwide, and China’s attendance, in particular, has fallen 45 percent to 65 percent. Thus, the producers have to find a creative way to split the difference given how unpredictable the box office is these days.

In any event, Leterrier is eager to get started despite not reading a script yet, but he also can’t spin his wheels until the Fast brain trust and studio get their ducks in a row. 

“I can’t wait, but I also cannot wait. Directors don’t idle well, so I have to direct [other projects until then]. I love this franchise, and I hope we get to finish in the best way possible,” Leterrier says. “I’m contracted. [If] we go, we go. We’re lucky to be having a great year [at the box office], but it’s different now. Movies have evolved and tastes have evolved and the box office has evolved. So we have to align our budgetary needs to the reality of the box office. We know that, and it’s fine. Everybody does that. It’ll be fine.”

Below, during a conversation with THR, Leterrier also discusses the inspirations behind The Last House, as well as its format shift from 35 mm to digital midway through the piece.

****

We last spoke for Fast X, and you obviously went all over the world to film that movie. Did the rigor of that globe-trotting production make a contained movie like The Last House all the more appealing? 

Yeah, absolutely. But I didn’t know that my wish would become a nightmare. The Last House was the most difficult film I’ve ever done. You have no idea. It was awful.

How come?

Because I tried to make everything practical. We built a real house with wild walls and a liftable ceiling, and we could light it easily. It was one-way concrete and wood. We built a whole neighborhood on stage. The garden, rain and animals were real. There was one dog, but the rest were wild animals that acted like wild animals. And as the movie evolves, the house evolves. So it was very technical and very difficult, but I loved every second of it. I love it now [that we’re done]. (Laughs.) Every day, the cast and crew looked at each other and were like, “Oof, this is a tough one.”

Most directors start their careers with something tied to a single location, but you did two decades of globe-trotting before finally doing a contained movie.

We’re better when given a box, and I literally gave myself a box. If you’re given parameters that are a little contained, you think about your shots and the acting a bit more or a bit differently. Obviously, I do this whenever I work on a big canvas, but it’s not as compromised. You have to trust your savviness and your instinct a little bit more than just putting five cameras on something and going.

I had to be very specific on this one because it was smaller and the budget was much smaller. It’s one of the smallest movies I’ve made, but it needed to be to make my first very personal movie. This one spoke to me when I read the first act. The script is quite different from the final movie, but when I read it, I was like, This movie is talking about me as a human being, as a father, as a family member and as a member of society. So I was willing to let go of the super giant production to go a little tighter.

What were your points of reference?

I wanted to capture that feeling of a dark 1980s Amblin or Spielberg movie: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Poltergeist and E.T. These movies spoke about us, and they certainly spoke to me because I experienced the world through giant screens. So I tried to capture that feeling with this one — and by mixing formats. In the [intimate character-driven] first half of the film, we used spherical lenses on 35mm [à la E.T.], and then anamorphic C-series lenses on digital in the [more adventurous] second half. 

The Last House makes the COVID pandemic look like a staycation. The Delgado family are literally stuck inside their house, and they have to survive on what they already have on hand. Did the writer Matthew Robinson birth this script during the pandemic? 

I think the first act was born shortly after the pandemic. Matthew Robinson wrote it during a two-week fever dream. So the first act stayed pretty much the same, but then it evolved a little bit. I didn’t want to make a COVID movie, but I did want to make a movie that spoke about our universal experience during the pandemic. The first month was surviving physically and feeding yourself and trying to protect yourself. But it very quickly evolved into surviving psychologically, mentally and emotionally. I think we’re still reeling from it. As a society, we don’t interact the way we used to interact before COVID. That’s where our movie begins, and we can jump through the exposition much quicker to get to the characters.

As I was watching, I kept wondering if you shot sequentially because the story and structure really support that ultra-rare scenario. I’ve since learned that you did actually shoot in order. Was that a requirement for you?

It would’ve been impossible to do it otherwise because we only had one house. It was shot in sequence, but we planned it backwards. We peeled back layer after layer. Again, because I’m an insane person, I was all about the practicality of everything. I didn’t want anything to be brought into the house later that wasn’t in the house at the beginning. So I couldn’t come up with an act two idea, such as, Let’s put a car here or a bike there. Everything that they use and consume had to be seen from the start. 

We consulted survival experts to calculate how much wood they could remove from the walls to heat themselves or build something they needed over the course of [six or seven] years. And everything in the house worked. The hunting traps were built practically out of Dyson vacuum cleaners and skateboards. We could literally go hunting if we wanted. We didn’t, obviously, because those wild animals were fine, but the traps worked perfectly. Everything was just done so perfectly. Our production designer, Kevin Jenkins, and his team worked so hard at making the house and the contents of the house so perfectly real. 

Thanks to Jane Petrie’s costume department, the sweatshirt that Greta Lee wears in the beginning becomes something else in the middle and then becomes a fishing line at the end. We had one sweater, and we just took it apart. 

Not to mention, our poor actors had to gain weight and then lose weight and muscle to feel really weak. Then they had to gain weight again and be aged up. All of that stuff took a toll on them, but they did it willingly and amazingly.

Fast Forever, or Fast 11, has taken so long that you’ve made two other movies in that time. Are you still going to wait it out? Or have you run out of patience? 

No, I love Fast. I worked very hard in coming up with the idea for the end and everything. I was so lucky to be a part of the franchise. So I can’t wait, but I also cannot wait. Directors don’t idle well, so I have to direct. (Leterrier snaps fingers a few times to signify how he needs to keep directing projects.) I created a studio in Europe. We wrote and shot a season of Lupin, my show in Europe. I did two movies [The Last House and Liminal], and I’m doing another one. So I cannot wait. But I love this franchise, and I hope we get to finish in the best way possible.

So it’s a maybe at this point in time?

No, I’m contracted. [If] we go, we go. We’re lucky to be having a great year [at the box office], but it’s different now. Movies have evolved and tastes have evolved and the box office has evolved. So we have to align our budgetary needs to the reality of the box office. We know that, and it’s fine. Everybody does that. It’ll be fine.

***
The Last House premieres Aug. 7 on Netflix.

Another week, another turn of the screw in the Paramount–Warner Bros. Discovery merger — aka David Ellison vs. the creative community. Microdramas may be all the rage in Hollywood, but they’ve got nothing on what’s currently playing out in state attorneys general offices, C-suites and op-ed pages.
 
With a host of players lining up on both sides of the deal and the AG’s picking up a major victory this week in their case against the merger, The Hollywood Reporter thought it a good moment for two staffers covering the story, Steven Zeitchik and Alex Weprin, to sit down and talk about it.
  
Steven Zeitchik: Well, it’s been an eventful week. The judge basically handed the AGs major leverage by setting the trial all the way in March instead of in the fall, which will cost Par (and gift WB shareholders) hundreds of millions of dollars in penalty fees, I think it’s about $7 million per day. This puts tons of pressure on Ellison to make a deal, doesn’t it?

Alex Weprin: I think they will need to try and figure out what they can do to get a settlement done. The AGs want structural remedies, and I wonder if there are enough things they could divest to appease them. Basic cable channels? There are ways to do that. Film studios? I’m not so sure.
 
SZ: Ya, I think the question is what the floor is for the AGs and what the ceiling is for Ellison, and do they overlap. I feel like he’d probably be willing to part with a Nick or MTV to get it done since he’s really more of a film guy, but would that be enough for Rob Bonta et al? There are also theatrical commitments beyond just words but not sure how that would work. A CNN divestiture would be a big political win but as you’ve noted the AG’s have staked their case on consolidation, not political speech. They can still spin it though as “diversity of voices” or some such. Settlements have a way of healing all wounds.
 
AW: I think Paramount needs CNN more than just about any of the other cable assets — it is simply more profitable and more stable than the other WBD cable channels. The cost savings from merging CBS and CNN could also be significant. If the antitrust case is based on pay-TV channel penetration, they could probably carve out a nice chunk of channels, and maybe just keep CNN and a couple more to keep everything below the limits.
 
SZ: Yeah I can’t see Ellison being at all willing to part with it. But how far does he go to fight — does he want a messy trial and billions in shareholder penalty fees or are is he incentivized to make it go away quicker? Would he settle for an ombudsman/oversight board? Selling a minority stake? It’s hard to see where there’s common ground here, and the AGs are feeling their oats.
 
AW: I think he’d be thrilled with an oversight board, I just can’t imagine that would appease the AGs. They may smell blood in the water. And again, cable TV is in many ways easier because the past year has seen spinoffs and sales, so you can imagine how it would work. He wants the Warners film studio, there’s no obvious structural remedy there, right?
 
SZ: I don’t see how the studio gets taken out of this. Some commitment to a certain number of movies would be the only possible solution but how do you enforce that governmentally and is it even legal? Part of the problem here is that the critics are opposed to consolidation but consolidation is why he’s doing this! So I don’t see how you make everyone happy. The other chip of course is HBO. That’s obviously a huge one for the creative community — the crown jewel and big buyer — and one they would be THRILLED to see not go with Ellison. But is there any way he lets that go? Maybe if he was really, really, in a gun to his head situation. Maybe.
 
AW: I think HBO and HBO Max are the key gaining streaming scale for them, so I think it is a must have for him. The good news for Ellison is that the AG’s case is so focused on basic cable that they don’t even touch HBO, which would make it an odd chess piece to play. I think that AMC and Regal Cinemas CEOs, meanwhile, are angling for a binding commitment to make a minimum of 30 movies per year for an extended period of time. There is precedent: When Comcast acquired NBCUniversal, they agreed to certain conditions for seven years.
 
SZ: Interesting re: Comcast, I’d forgotten about that. And yeah, the Max+Plus juggernaut is a real selling point for him. Honestly that’s the rare case where I think the whole need-to-compete-with-the-tech-guys argument holds water. With the number of subs each has (though there’s probably a fair bit of overlap) the combined Max-Paramount Plus really would be a pretty staunch competitor to Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ (and I guess a surging Peacock and Apple to a rather, um, lesser extent). So basically if we had to predict it feels like a few cable channels get spun off and the studio commits to a theatrical floor of some kind and both sides call it a win. Who wins in that scenario? Is the creative community appeased? Should they be?

AW: I don’t think there’s any scenario that appeases the creative community, but selling off a bunch of cable channels (maybe or maybe not including CNN) would be a start, and a binding commitment to 30 films for an extended period would please the theater owners. The issue for writers, actors, etc is that it will still mean one less buyer for their wares, and that is a harder nut to crack. Here’s a wildcard: What if they … cut a deal with Netflix? Maybe sell Netflix the film distribution division, one of the WBD sub-studios, some IP? Maybe sell some cable channels to Versant or private equity?

SZ: Wow, Netflix coming back in for anything meaningful would be a true — dare I say — Game of Thrones-like twist. It’s hard to imagine the creative community being appeased by THAT, since they were even more worried about Netflix than they were Par given the former’s anti-theatrical stance. But it would certainly address monopoly/consolidation fears. As for the cable channels to private equity, that would technically be a win but I think of the be-careful-what-you-wish-for variety.

AW: Movie theaters have been battered since COVID, and this is the first good year since then. I think they fear the merger falling through and one or both companies not having the capacity to produce as many movies as they did, I think they fear the merger being completed without any binding commitments around a minimum number of films. A binding deal for a minimum of 30 films for an extended period (maybe seven years, the length of the Comcast commitments) could give them a runway to try and salvage their businesses.

SZ: It’s certainly a lot more attractive for a studio to make that commitment now than it was seven months ago when the deal was announced and before the big box office rebound. Let’s pivot quickly to the other part of the story this week — the allies. You mention Regal and AMC. The CEOs of those companies just came out in favor of the deal. Not a huge surprise to me — they are reading tea leaves and angling for favorable terms. What do you make of that? And what do you make of the gambit — pretty transparent it seems to me — to get people like Ari Emanuel to sing Par’s praises and show “hey, not all Democrats oppose this!” (Just the major ones in Congress, many of the AGs and many of their biggest donors in Hollywood).

AW: Ari is obviously in business with Paramount (and everyone else, to be fair), and he has clearly been a consigliere to Ellison in recent years. No doubt many of his clients oppose the merger, and as an agent he must be cognizant of the competition factor. But, yes, he is out there as a well-known Democrat (albeit one who is also friendly with Trump) supporting the deal.

SZ: I’m just not sure having people with obvious skin in the game — Chris Wallace is another one, a RedBird advisor and guy who may well want to get back on CNN who wrote a pro-merger column for THR this week — coming out in favor of the deal achieves anything strategically. Ellison also wrote that NYT op-ed making his case. If anything I feel like seeing all these foot soldiers out there stumping for it could backfire for Ellison, make opponents — and there are so many in the creative community — feel like the deal is rigged. Anyway should be an interesting few coming weeks. Or is it years? I’m losing track.

AW: My suspicion is that if both sides are open to structural remedies, we will know more sooner rather than later. But either way it would make a great starting point for a Succession spinoff series.

SZ: That could be the new HBO’s first greenlight! Great chatting as always.

AW: Same here.

Vicky McClure wants to set the record straight.

We’ve found a precious 40 minutes away from the hustle and bustle of press day for season four of ITV‘s Trigger Point at London’s Soho Hotel. Tucked into the corner of one of its underground bars, McClure speaks to The Hollywood Reporter while her co-stars — Eric Shango, Natalie Simpson, Maanuv Thiara among them — dutifully pose for photos and laud the latest work of show creator Daniel Brierley.

McClure, returning as the no-nonsense bomb disposal expert Lana Washington in another high-octane, watch-behind-your-hands instalment, is taking us through her early years at Nottingham’s Television Workshop, a Midlands-based film, TV, and theatre training school for kids from working-class backgrounds. She had initially eyed a career in professional dance and landed a place at the prestigious Italia Conti academy. But her family couldn’t afford the tuition. She stayed with the Television Workshop until the age of 21.

I halt the conversation early on to ask if what I’ve read online — that McClure was mentored at the Workshop by The Odyssey breakout Samantha Morton, a fellow Nottingham native — is true. The actress is quick to clarify: “That isn’t correct. Sam is a huge part of the Workshop, and my word, I mean, even now, the gigs that she’s in,” she says, alluding to the latest Christopher Nolan hit, wide-eyed with awe. “[But] we never crossed over. I actually didn’t know her while I was in the Workshop.” The pair would, later in their respective careers, meet at odd events. “You gravitate to each other if you’re both from Nottingham or the Workshop,” explains McClure, who was proudly born and raised in the English city (she has resisted the industry-induced pressure to relocate to the capital — a decision we’ll come to later).

It was only when both of them were leading Dominic Savage’s I Am… series that McClure and Morton ended up “having a long chat on the phone.” They’ve stayed in touch, and McClure certainly calls her peer “an icon of the Workshop, and of the acting world.” But, contrary to what the internet purports, this friendship didn’t blossom until well beyond the Nottingham Television Workshop, which McClure remains a devoted patron of.

And while Morton’s face currently graces thousands of cinema screens across the world, it is Vicky McClure who is known far and wide here in Britain. She has steadily risen through the ranks for two decades now to become one of the most prolific actors in the country, famed for her forthright characters and becoming, frankly, a legend of the U.K. police procedural (Line of Duty, Broadchurch, to name a few).

With Trigger Point continuing to pull in millions of viewers — season three’s seven-day consolidated average came in at 5.1m last year — and a hotly anticipated Line of Duty return imminent, McClure, now 43, enters a chapter of her career marked by prolificacy, freedom, and industry-wide reverence.

Her starring role aged 23 as Lol Jenkins in Shane Meadows’s 2006 film This Is England, and in the Channel 4 sequel mini-series This Is England ’86, This Is England ’88 and This Is England ’90 from 2010 to 2015, is what she considers her long-awaited big break. “But I went straight back to the office,” McClure tells THR about her job at a house valuation company. “There’s just an illusion that once you’re in a film or you’re in something, that’s it. Onward you go,” she continues. “I’d train new people, then I sort of went into the HR department, looked after things like the vending machines, the post, a wide variety. I was even fire warden at one point, which I think has done me well for drifting into Lana,” she laughs. “That was my thing. I’d go off and do This Is England, and then I’d come back.”

She worked at the business for eight years, and in that time, starred in a film directed by Madonna, Filth and Wisdom (2008). “We always think people care more than they do,” McClure says when asked what her office mates thought of the Madonna gig. “You know what I mean? They go, ‘Oh, amazing. That’s cool. Well, we’re having lunch.’”

The reality is, while McClure was shooting with mega-stars, she was also getting told “no” a lot. “I learnt very quickly to stop telling people when I had an audition because nine times out of 10, I never got the job,” she admits. She recalls going up for roles in Peaky Blinders and Sarah Gavron’s 2015 Suffragette film. “That was one of those moments,” she says about feeling particularly heartbroken by the Suffragette casting, which eventually went to Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne-Marie Duff and Meryl Streep. “I wasn’t really that bothered about learning too much at school. I’d missed out on lots of history, so Jonny [Owen, McClure’s husband, also an actor and producer] sat down with me and we talked about the suffragette movement in great detail. I started getting really attached to this world and these characters.”

Over time, she nailed the accent — “at the Workshop, it wasn’t like you trained to do accents, you just did them” — but eventually, nothing came of it. “They’re a bit naughty,” she says. “Sometimes casting directors can do that thing where they go, ‘So you’re available for those dates?’ Come on, guys. That’s basically a: ‘Let’s shake hands and roll the cameras!’”

Still, on TV especially, McClure gradually made a name for herself with small roles in Five Daughters, The Body Farm and True Love. Then, in 2012, Jed Mercurio’s Line of Duty hit BBC Two. The series, about an anti-corruption unit inside a fictional police force, accrued a cult following around the world. Perhaps for the first time, McClure, as the driven, undaunted Detective Constable (later Sergeant and Inspector) Kate Fleming, was getting her flowers.

“I don’t think I felt fame throughout This Is England,” she ponders. “People were really respectful of that show, and it was such an ensemble piece that it didn’t belong to just one person. It was a really special show… [And] I think Line of Duty [is too]. It’s not a fluke because Jed’s writing is obviously impeccable, but it’s all down to the audience, and if they start tuning in and if they show [interest], then you’re in a good spot. But there’s every chance it can go [the other way], and shows do, don’t they?” says the veteran of British broadcast television, likely well acquainted with the graveyard of BBC and ITV shows haunting various streaming platforms. “No one watches them, and then a few years later, there’s this weird surge where everyone starts watching them again.”

When the news of Line of Duty‘s season seven broke last year, it certainly wasn’t a surprise to McClure. “We’d never closed the door,” says Mercurio’s star. “Me, Jed, [co-stars] Martin [Compston] and Aidy [Adrian Dunbar] meet up for a curry at least a couple of times a year. We’ve always had a sociable time when we make the show,” she continues, “and I think that comes across. We always said, ‘Oh, it’d be a shame if [season six] was the last one,’ because we felt like we had a really different experience [during] COVID… So then it was a case of: How are the stars going to align? We’ve all been lucky to get other gigs. Of course, Jed’s busy. He’s got to write it. We knew when he started to pick up his pen again…” she pauses, flashing a grin.

It is interesting, McClure adds, that Line of Duty is predominantly a cast of working-class people, “written by Jed, who grew up in a working-class family in Birmingham,” she says. “And it plays out on screen — you have accents and you have characters that are able to tap into certain flaws. Relationships were formed that are so long-lasting. Martin and Aidy are family now. I adore them both. So [hiring working-class talent] works. People need a bit more belief in those lives and characteristics.”

McClure has been a champion of opening doors for working-class creatives her whole career. Her work with the Television Workshop is testament to that, though she isn’t content yet — by any means. “London should not be the center of the universe. For anything,” she says. “Don’t get me wrong, it’s an amazing city. But there is Nottingham, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow… The world’s a beautiful place, but with the industry in tow, it can’t all be London central. It has been and it still is, for so many years. And it’s just not serving anyone now.”

When I put to her that there has been something of a production boom outside of the capital — in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland — she maintains that while shoots are there, all of the really important get-togethers still happen in London. “It’s really naive of us to think that people can just afford that horrendous train fare or the petrol, or whatever it may be, [and] to just up and leave to get to that meeting. And I remember it was tricky for me. To get here and go, ‘I need to grab a sandwich and a cup of tea’ or something. It’s expensive.” McClure knows from first-hand experience that thousands of young actors will miss out on network-building because they can’t pay London rent: “It’s a very privileged space, a very privileged industry.”

And even when the long-hoped-for acclaim arrives, the quote-unquote “fame” comes with unwanted side effects. “I don’t want to sit here and go, ‘It’s been a problem for me,’” concedes McClure, who says that staying in Nottingham has made showbiz a more liveable place — literally — for an actor of her calibre. “I like to do things here and there. When I get nice invitations, if I can make them, and it’s something I want to do, I’ll go, and the paps [paparazzi] will do what they’ll do. You can kind of control it, to a degree. You can choose to put yourself out there a bit more — and sometimes you need it. You need the promotion to help whatever business it is you’re trying to sell.”

This is the more pragmatic side to McClure. With a BAFTA and a handful of wildly popular shows under her belt, you can’t deny it: She knows the ropes. “It’s a business and I’m in my mid-40s now,” she continues. “I’m a bit wiser, a bit longer in the tooth. I can see what things are, and you’re less naive. I’m not Hollywood. I feel Hollywood talking to The Hollywood Reporter,” she says, smiling again, though admitting she’s never even been to L.A. (Tinseltown may yet come knocking — McClure’s next film, Kenneth Branagh’s The Last Disturbance of Madeline Hynde, sees her next to Jodie Comer, Patricia Arquette and Michael Sheen.) “I think when I’m on my deathbed,” she continues, “I won’t be worrying about my career.”

What might McClure be more concerned with? Her charity work, for one — in 2019, she formed Our Dementia Choir following her late grandmother’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis. The organization was the subject of a BBC documentary, led by McClure, and over the years the group has performed in front of tens of thousands, including at Nottingham’s Splendour Festival. She also has a production company co-founded with her husband, Build Your Own Films, backed by All3Media and committed to nurturing projects “rich in subject matter, diversity and representation.”

Right now, however, it’s more Trigger Point on the telly for McClure. Releasing soon, the new season promises a deeper look into Lana’s trauma and, as you might have guessed, some pretty explosive drama. “There’s no joke to her job. It is life and death,” McClure says about returning to everyone’s favorite Expo. “We feel like we’ve seen it all in Trigger Point. Different types of scenarios.” She stops. Eye contact. “You haven’t seen it all.” She says this season’s writing team had a lot of fun concocting more dire situations for the Met Police bomb squad. “And we really own that. If there’s anyone that can go out with a bang, it’s Trigger Point. This is the bomb show.”

She remembers reading a Times paper describing the series as “Scooby-Doo on acid.” It was meant to be, according to McClure, a bit of a diss. She loved it. “It is Scooby-Doo on acid!” she beams. Most importantly, this Nottingham native is given the opportunity to take on the fearless Lana Washington once more, and it’s exactly where Vicky McClure wants to be. “I love it when she has one of them ‘fuck you’ moments. I always slip in a few more fucks than I probably should!”

Catch McClure in the brand new series of Trigger Point, coming soon to ITV1 and STV.

Warner Bros. Discovery would like you to focus on its second quarter 2026 streaming revenue — up 9 percent to $3.1 billion — because the box office was ugly.

Theatrical revenue dropped 46 percent from the comparable quarter last year as Supergirl and The Bride bombed. Making matters worse, their comps were to Q2 2025 hits A Minecraft Movie and Sinners.

WBD’s advertising revenue sunk 22 percent as Turner continues to feel the sting of no NBA. TV/streaming programming highlights in the June quarter included Euphoria, House of the Dragon, The Pitt, and the final season of Hacks.

Wall Street forecast Warner Bros. Discovery would record $9.21 billion in quarterly revenue. Another miss: WBD reported total revenues of $8.717 billion; net income was $100 million.

And yet, Paramount Skydance still wants it.

The process — and the drama — continues for David Ellison’s $111 billion takeover of WBD. There have been regular calls emanating from the U.S. and abroad to block the deal. It was originally supposed to be Netflix that bought the “WB” piece of “WBD,” but Ellison swooped in with an even bigger check and a promise to absorb the company in its entirety.

A coalition of a dozen states are attempting to block Paramount/WBD; the case will go to trial in March 2027. Meanwhile, beginning Oct. 1, 2026, Paramount Skydance must begin paying a ticking fee of $7 million per day to WBD shareholders. The ticking fee is only paid out if the deal closes.

Ellison believes the opposition is politically motivated and centers on his potential oversight of CNN’s editorial content. He already controls CBS News, which has undergone many changes since Ellison’s Skydance merged with Paramount Global.

“The issue is whether I can be trusted as a steward of Warner’s CNN. There has been speculation about my politics, my loyalties, my intentions,” he wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed. “Unfortunately, I can’t give anyone a view into my heart and mind, but I can share this: I have regularly voted for candidates of both parties; I hold some views that would be called conservative and others that would be called liberal, just like most Americans; and when it comes to our news operations, I do not aspire to lead these companies to bend their newsrooms to my views. I believe that news should be based on facts and truth.”

There were no updates provided on the pending deal within Warner Bros. Discovery’s earnings report.

Versant, the cable TV-focused spinoff from NBCUniversal that runs CNBC, MS NOW, USA, Golf Channel and other assets, reported lower second earnings on lower revenue and public company costs from its Comcast separation.

Now solo Versant reported revenue for the quarter to June 30 at $1.64 billion, down 3.8 percent from $1.7 billion in the same period of 2025. In that revenue mix, linear distribution was down 6.3 percent to $954 million, as Versant continues to rely on a declining pay TV business.

Advertising revenue at $423 million was down just under 1 percent from the year-earlier period when ad revenue dropped 13 percent. Platforms revenue grew 0.8 percent to $212 million, and content licensing revenue was unchanged at $43 million.

Net income attributable to Versant was down 30 percent at $211 million due to lower overall revenues and one-time costs following the separation from Comcast, including higher tax expenses after the divestiture of SportsEngine. The adjusted EBITDA fell 9 percent to $624 million.

Versant, as it looks to diversify away from traditional pay TV channels to focus more on streaming TV platforms and digital business lines, said it was raising both revenues and EBITDA guidance for the second half of the year. The full-year outlook for 2026 will see total revenue of between $6.2 billion and $6.45 billion, while the adjusted EBITDA will come in between $1.9 billion and $2.05 billion.

“Versant’s brands once again demonstrated strength, durability and scale, reaching more than 120 million viewers each month during the quarter while reinforcing our leadership across news, sports and entertainment,” said Mark Lazarus, Versant CEO, said in a statement ahead of a morning analyst call to also include CFO and COO Anand Kini.  

Iceland-born, U.S.-based producer Sigurjón “Joni” Sighvatsson has the kind of résumé that speaks for itself: David Lynch‘s Cannes Palme d’Or winner Wild at Heart, Julian Schnabel’s Basquiat, Kathryn Bigelow’s The Weight of Water, plus music videos and series including Twin Peaks and Beverly Hills, 90210.

This week, the Palomar Pictures principal — who co-founded Propaganda Films in 1986 — returns to the 79th edition of the Locarno Film Festival to receive the Raimondo Rezzonico Award in the Piazza Grande on Thursday evening. The honor is named for the man who served as Locarno’s president from 1981 to 1999.

Ahead of his trip to Switzerland, Sighvatsson spoke with THR about his excitement over returning to Locarno, his read on the festival circuit at large, and why he believes his work doesn’t belong in the “closed system” he says Netflix has built.

Sighvatsson has visited Locarno before and remains a fan, largely thanks to its more adventurous, less predictable curation. “The festival is not just focused on what is in the competition,” he says. “Everything has changed. When Wild at Heart won in Cannes [in 1990], that was a big platform for that kind of unusual film to get. Now, we don’t know really what Cannes is anymore. What are they catering to? What is their vision? It is a very different festival from Locarno.”

Unlike the bigger festivals, he adds, Locarno “never had this incredible focus on just getting stars, or just a competition, or just this.” That flexibility, he argues, will serve it well: “I love Locarno. I think some of the other festivals have become prisoners of their own success, and with the business changing, they have changed. I think festivals like Locarno, which are smaller and have a slightly lower profile and different approaches to film, will do better.”

AI’s Impact On the Industry

With AI a hot topic of debate in Hollywood and beyond, what is the producer’s reading on the technology’s likely impact on the film industry? “I think AI actually will help in many ways, but I don’t really see AI movies changing things because in the end, movies are about people and they’re about stories,” Sighvatsson tells THR. “I see it working for some projects. For the new The Odyssey, Christopher Nolan was not using AI for a reason — because he doesn’t want to make people feel it’s AI. I heard the new [live-action] Moana, the Disney film, feels just like an AI film, even though it’s using real characters [and CGI].”

His bottom line: “I think it’s a double-edged sword, but AI will help. It’s like any very powerful tool, for example, the atom bomb. It’s all about how you use it, or if you use it at all. And I think a lot of filmmakers will opt not to use AI because they don’t need to. But others will use it. Will it change the course of cinema? No. I think it will change television more.”

On Netflix and the “Closed System”

Sighvatsson isn’t optimistic about television’s current state, largely because of streaming — and he draws a sharp line between films and what Netflix produces. “There are things that Netflix calls films. I don’t call them films,” he says. “I call them Netflix films. That’s very different than a film.”

He elaborates: “Most of the things that Netflix does don’t have a very deep meaning, and they are not supposed to. You still need a lot of skill to make those big Netflix films, but they don’t really expect them to have a long life, and they are shown only within a closed system. It’s the Netflix system, so Netflix is just making something for a closed system, whereas everything that I’ve made, even music videos, is for an open system that anybody can access.”

The distinction, he says, comes down to distribution: “The difference is that Netflix doesn’t even sell any of its product to anybody else but Netflix. So they’ve created the language that fits this box that is called the Netflix box, and they’re very successful, including with some of the animation and some of the children’s content. And even though Netflix is changing, it doesn’t change the fact that a Netflix film fits only in a Netflix box. It wouldn’t fit in an Imax theater, for example. … And when you’re producing for such masses, you automatically demand less complexity.”

Given all that, don’t expect a Sighvatsson-produced Netflix title anytime soon. “I don’t think so,” he says. “I don’t think it’s my thing. I don’t think I’m in the Netflix universe.”

Still, he gives the streamer credit where it’s due. “I think it’s great that other people [create content for] it. That’s fantastic, and Netflix has changed the business,” he says. “What I think Netflix has done well is give people in other countries an opportunity to make material in different languages, in different cultures. That, I think, is the greatest contribution Netflix has made.”

ProSiebenSat.1 posted lower first-half revenue as Germany‘s weak television advertising market and competition from broadcasters carrying the World Cup weighed on its entertainment business.

The German commercial broadcaster, which is controlled by the Berlusconi family’s MediaForEurope (MFE) group, reported first-half revenue of €1.54 billion ($1.77 billion) on Thursday, down 9 per cent from a year earlier. On an organic basis, excluding portfolio changes and currency effects, revenue declined 2 per cent. Second-quarter revenue fell 8.5 per cent to €768 million ($881 million).

The company said advertising revenue continued to be affected by a slowdown in the German TV market, the ongoing shift of ad spending to digital platforms and competition from broadcasters airing major sporting events, particularly the World Cup. Entertainment revenue fell 6 per cent in the first half to €952 million ($1.09 billion), with linear TV advertising down 9 per cent.

Digital advertising remained a bright spot. Digital & Smart advertising revenue rose 6 per cent, driven by ProSieben’s streaming service Joyn, content distribution on third-party platforms and the group’s audio business. Advertising-supported streaming revenue at Joyn increased 8 per cent in the first half, while subscription revenue climbed 20 per cent.

Despite the revenue decline, earnings improved sharply as the company cut costs and continued a broader restructuring. First-half EBITDA rose by €152 million ($174 million) to €124 million ($142 million), compared with a loss of €28 million ($32 million) a year earlier. Programming expenses fell to €404 million ($464 million) from €496 million ($570 million), while personnel costs declined to €299 million ($343 million) from €416 million ($478 million), reflecting restructuring measures, asset sales and lower content costs.

ProSiebenSat.1 has also continued to slim down its portfolio. Since the start of the year, the company has sold six non-core businesses, including Studio71 U.S., as it focuses on its German-speaking entertainment operations.

The company is also betting big on Joyn. Last month the streaming service announced a deal with ZDF to add on-demand programming from the German public broadcaster. ProSieben is also developing a shared streaming technology platform with MediaForEurope, for use across the group’s European markets. MFE pan-European network of commercial broadcasters also includes Italy’s Mediaset and Telecinco in Spain.

ProSiebenSat.1 reaffirmed its full-year outlook, maintaining its forecast for slight organic revenue growth and a significant increase in EBITDA, while cautioning that visibility in Germany’s advertising market remains limited.

What do the CEOs of AMC Theatres and Regal Cinemas have in common? Both have been enticed to back David Ellison’s $111 billion quest to merge Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery.

Regal chief Eduardo Acuna was the latest to go public with his blessing on Wednesday. The endorsement from the leader of a major exhibitor is notable given that the lawsuit filed by 12 states against Paramount to halt the deal is being waged as an antitrust battle on the turf of the fragile theatrical marketplace. If the theater owners themselves aren’t worried about Paramount’s undue influence on the landscape, well, then why should the states? At least, that may be the logic of Team Ellison.

The states’ logic is quite different. In a lawsuit led by California attorney general Rob Bonta, their argument goes that the merged studios will have undue influence over the supply of product to movie theaters. “Movie theatres rely on competition between Paramount and Warner Bros,” stated the complaint filed July 13. “Through this competition, theatres incentivize creativity and quality, and they secure competitive prices and terms for themselves and for audiences.”

The states argue that a merged WarnerMount will control 30 percent of movies that have earned $100 million-plus at the box office and have been bowed in 3,000 theaters for wide release. The case against Paramount is also backed by Cinema United, the lobbying group that represents movie theater owners and chains, including Regal and AMC.

“The ramifications of further movie studio consolidation will be significant and lasting, not just in Hollywood, but on Main Streets across this nation where local movie theaters serve as cultural and financial cornerstones for communities of all sizes,” Cinema United’s top exec, Michael O’Leary, said when the states filed suit in July.

Paramount CEO Ellison has pledged to ramp up production of features and release a combined 30 movies a year theatrically with 45-day theatrical windows. Regal CEO Acuna made reference to these promises in his statement (in full below), noting, “I believe David is sincere in making these commitments.”

Regal, the Knoxville-based division of exhibitor Cineworld that emerged from bankruptcy in 2023, is the second-largest circuit in the U.S. behind AMC Theatres. Adam Aron, who has led AMC for the last decade, was a relatively early backer of the Paramount-Warner Bros., making comments supporting Ellison’s bid at CinemaCon early this year.

Sean Gamble, the CEO of Cinemark, the third largest chain stateside, hasn’t been as explicit as Aron or Acuna but appeared to express support for Paramount and Warners over a suitor that would be less theatrically-minded, like Netflix.

Paramount’s legal team has argued that the high-stakes court battle should take place in November of this year but a judge disagreed and set the trial for March 2027. That sets up a long waiting game, which may be why the battle in the court of public opinion is only heating up. In recent days superagent Ari Emanuel, Aron and Ellison himself have all penned op-eds explaining the Paramount side of the logic for a merger. On the opposing side, another star-studded letter led by Benedict Cumberbatch, Alan Cumming and Benedict Wong argued against the merits of the deal.

Regal CEO Acuna’s full statement is below:

This year has been an important one for our industry. Attendance is up, younger audiences are coming out in numbers we haven’t seen in years, and the upcoming release schedule looks just as strong. While there is real momentum, we need a thriving studio system to ensure that the industry has a platform from which to grow.

This is why, after much consideration, we believe it’s time for Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery to move forward. I’ve spoken directly with Skydance Paramount CEO David Ellison and his team about what a combined company would mean for exhibition, and he has made some specific commitments: at least 30 theatrical films a year, a protected theatrical window with 45 days for TVOD and 90 days for SVOD for a minimum of three years, and a $30 billion annual investment in media content. I believe David is sincere in making these commitments, and he has offered to execute a consent decree to the State AGs to that effect. These are tangible and important commitments that will benefit the industry and which can be measured. 

A long fight in court that extends into spring or summer doesn’t put more films in theaters, and is not beneficial to studios, filmmakers, the guests who go to the movies, or theater businesses like Regal and the people who work for them. It just creates more uncertainty and distraction that could be damaging to our industry as we build on our current success. It is time for all parties to sit down and work out how to formalize these commitments. With these measures in place, we believe that Paramount can be an effective steward of these studios that mean an enormous amount to people who love movies.

For a few years there, Paramount+ had a lot of eggs in one basket. Following the rebrand of CBS All Access to Paramount+ in 2021, prolific Texas-based creator Taylor Sheridan has been at the forefront of the streamer’s strategy as he churned out show after show: 1923. Landman. Tulsa King. Lioness. Mayor of Kingstown — even as his mega-success Yellowstone was conspicuously absent from the streamer (the result of an exclusive licensing deal with Peacock).

Now, however, there’s new management at the platform, Sheridan will be out the door in a few years and Paramount+’s identity is being reworked. Nearly a year after Paramount Global merged with Skydance Media, the strategy under the streamer’s head of originals Jane Wiseman is taking shape. Though its new originals likely won’t start debuting on the service until the beginning of 2027, The Hollywood Reporter’s conversations with sources and execs’ own public statements show that Paramount+ is aiming to expand the appeal of the service beyond the existing Sheridan heads, even as it has clearly learned a thing or two from the king of operatic neo-Westerns.

Paramount+ reported more than 81 million subscribers in its latest earnings report, putting it behind Netflix, Disney+ and HBO Max (which could become its corporate sibling if David Ellison’s $111 billion Warner Bros. merger goes through) according to their most recent disclosures. To make it more competitive in the sharp-elbowed streaming wars, its executives are aiming to develop destination series that will broaden the streamer’s appeal, especially to more women and genre viewers. 

“The green lights have to have that core evangelizing audience that’s hopefully slightly different than the core seen before [on Paramount+], but in success they’re supposed to capture multiple audiences,” says an executive familiar. A rep for Paramount Skydance declined to comment.

While the number of women out in the world wearing Yellowstone Dutton Ranch T-shirts will tell you that Sheridan shows have their share of female fans (and the studio cites that in a recent count, The Madison, Dutton Ranch and the first season of Marshals had slightly more female than male viewers), a cornerstone of the new strategy is appealing more broadly to women. “They’re building a female-forward wheel that is attempting to expand the brand’s reach beyond what it’s probably best known for, which is the Taylor Sheridan fare,” says one agent. 

Direct-to-consumer chair Cindy Holland, who hired Wiseman, has made no secret of this ambition, telegraphing as much at Paramount’s 2026 upfront presentation. And the focus on female viewers has been on display in series pickups from Wiseman’s team like Discretion, a legal thriller produced by A24 and starring Nicole Kidman and Elle Fanning; Fear Not, a true-crime limited series from MGM Television starring Anne Hathaway; and the sequel to Clueless with Alicia Silverstone. On the unscripted  side, Paramount+ recently gave the go-ahead to a dating show from the Love Is Blind production company Kinetic Content (working title: Making Love) and the youth baseball reality series Team Moms from executive producer Kim Kardashian.

Around town, the streamer has been calling for female-fronted adult dramas; romance and family stories; soap opera-type fare; and thrillers that are serialized, say sources. They’re interested in work with major creatives and stars (“They are cost-conscious, although they’re looking for big names to drive marketing,” says a production company exec). The streamer is also dipping its toes in YA stories à la Outer Banks, The Summer I Turned Pretty, Riverdale and its own series School Spirits but seemingly doesn’t want to spend a fortune on these projects (more like $3 million to $5 million an episode), says another agent source.

Like Peacock, the streamer is also testing out microdramas, the often soapy, bite-size vertical video format that typically overindexes on romance. The move follows BET — the Paramount Skydance-owned brand focused on the Black community whose series and films recently moved over to Paramount+ — partnering with aTwist to produce these vertical video series.

On the other end of things, the streamer is putting feelers out for “grounded genre” ideas — essentially big-concept genre (sci-fi, fantasy, supernatural) stories with relatable human drama. Wiseman’s hire, executive vp originals Chris Parnell, a former Apple TV creative exec who worked on Pluribus, is spearheading this push, where the streamer is said to be looking for projects along the line of, yes, Pluribus but also Silo, Severance, Fallout and Stranger Things. 

These shows might appeal to the Star Trek crowd that is already on the platform, but they are also seen as a draw for international viewers who may not have traditionally been as compelled by Sheridan’s Westerns as the domestic audience. (Paramount’s recently inked exclusive deal with Stranger Things creators Matt and Ross Duffer will likely play a role here. The Duffers are set to produce work for Paramount direct-to-consumer, of which Paramount+ is a part, among other commitments.)

Other green lights from Wiseman’s team feel far more in line with the audience that already flocks to Paramount+. The logline for the upcoming Kenneth Branagh-starring drama Laird (a major landowner squaring off against a billionaire land grab) sounds like Yellowstone with a Scottish accent. 9/12, a prestige drama starring Jeremy Strong about the legal battle that 9/11 first responders engaged in after the disaster, could appeal to the Marshals crowd. 

And what defines the platform isn’t just the type of stories it wants but also the ones it’s avoiding. Half-hour comedies aren’t on Paramount+’s wish list, sources say, given that CBS sitcoms like The Neighborhood and Georgie & Mandy’s First Marriage begin streaming on Paramount+ the day after they air on linear television.

Even with all of the streamer’s announcements, the volume of Paramount+ dealmaking has surprised some observers. When Holland’s hire was officially announced last year, hopes ballooned across the industry that she would be spearheading a major spending push akin to her time at Netflix during its spendthrift era. Those dreams haven’t panned out, say sources, who note the platform’s selectivity so far. Says the second agent, “The thing that popped out to us is the streamer is a very small team and they are not looking to replicate the ascension that Netflix had when Cindy was there in terms of volume. They’re taking very specific shots — and not a lot of them.” 

The executive familiar pushes back on this observation, saying, “I can guarantee you the deal volume has been extraordinary.” The studio, meanwhile, cites that it has greenlit 25 new series over the past 10 months, not including renewals and pickups.

Paramount+ still has some time before Sheridan officially leaves the streamer that his shows helped to characterize; the creator’s TV deal will officially move to NBCUniversal in 2029. At that point, the streamer will retain the blockbuster series the creator made for it previously, even as any fresh Sheridan series will be written and produced exclusively for NBCUniversal platforms. 101 Studios, the studio that works with Sheridan on his series, has already moved its deal to NBCU.

That situation gives Paramount+ a generous offramp, a period of a few years when it can endeavor to retain the creator’s fans while also offering nonsubscribers compelling reasons to create an account. “They know that the whole service for the most part is buoyed on the back of Taylor Sheridan shows. It is obvious if that’s the case,” says the second agent. “The weird thing is he’s leaving, but he’s not leaving tomorrow.” 

This story appeared in the Aug. 5 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. Click here to subscribe.