As Jean-Luc Picard in seven seasons, four films and a sequel, Stewart made us believe the most interesting person in the room might also be the most humane

• Patrick Stewart dies age 86

• His life in pictures

• Patrick Stewart brought gravitas and complexity to the screen, from Star Trek to X-Men

• ‘He stood for the best of us’: William Shatner and more pay tribute

What might humanity look like in 400 years’ time if we really do become wiser and more compassionate with each passing decade? The creators of Star Trek: The Next Generation clearly felt the answer closely resembled Patrick Stewart, who has died aged 86 after a short illness. Their decision may well have opened up an entirely new future for Gene Roddenberry’s enduring, resolutely utopian space saga.

Prior to the casting of the classically trained Yorkshireman in 1987, Star Trek was best known for the interplay between William Shatner’s charismatic, impulsive Captain Kirk and Leonard Nimoy’s drily logical Spock. Stewart brought something of both men to the captain’s chair as Jean-Luc Picard, combining analytical rigour with a depth of feeling his imposing formality could never quite conceal.

Waititi joins a long list of movie-makers who were expected to bring a new direction to the franchise, before the studio appeared to get cold feet

Movie-making these days is a very expensive endeavour. In 1977, George Lucas’s Star Wars cost $11m to make, which would be approximately $60m in today’s money, and has since amassed $775m at the global box office, including rereleases. Fast forward to 2026 and the most recent film in the long-running space saga, The Mandalorian and Grogu, cost a reported $165m and brought in $346m worldwide. If there was ever a Hollywood gold rush, the mines ran dry long ago.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Disney-owned Lucasfilm seems to be so terrified of making new Star Wars movies. Since 2019’s The Rise of Skywalker, only one Star Wars film, the aforementioned Mando and Grogu movie, has actually made it into cinemas. But that has not stopped the studio announcing a small armada of other projects – sometimes via press release, more often at various high-profile celebrations, conferences or other corporate jamborees – that have so far failed to reach multiplexes.

After Joss Whedon’s arrival, back in the news with comments from Ben Affleck, the franchise lost a sense of earnest passion that could have sustained a weary DCEU

Nine years after superhero epic Justice League arrived in cinemas, there ought to be very little left to say about how it all went wrong. Zack Snyder shot the film, Joss Whedon substantially rewrote and reshot it, and audiences eventually got to see both men’s versions. Any debate over their relative merits long ago disappeared. Whedon is pretty much cancelled; Snyder has reinvented himself as the writer-director of extremely average ersatz Star Wars movies for Netflix, and an entirely new DC universe is under way that has very little to do with either of them.

To a greater or lesser extent, the world has moved on. But Ben Affleck’s latest comments raise an uncomfortable question about whether Snyder’s departure was ever presented honestly. Speaking to Josh Horowitz on the Happy Sad Confused podcast, Affleck, who played Batman, described the Justice League reshoots as the lowest point of his career, but reserved his strongest criticism for the circumstances of Snyder’s departure. The director stepped away in May 2017, two months after his daughter Autumn killed herself, aged 20, with the public explanation that he needed to be with his family. Affleck, however, alleged that studio Warner Bros had used the tragedy to justify replacing him. “The way in which that was, I thought, used as an excuse was one of the shittiest things I’ve ever seen,” Affleck said. “It was so gross.”

Warning: contains spoilers
The four short scenes added to the new version has made the film the highest-grossing of all time – but the only people really enjoying this are the Disney accountants

Does it really matter which film is the highest-grossing of all time at the global box office? Will James Cameron be lying awake at night staring into the darkness and pondering whether to withdraw humanity’s access to giant, blue-skinned space elves out of sheer spite, just because Avatar has been dethroned once again by Avengers: Endgame? It seems unlikely. Are the Russo brothers at this very moment leaping and capering with wild abandon because adding a few new scenes and releasing their film for the umpteenth time has led to this momentous changing of the guard? Probably not. Is a Disney accountant somewhere holding a tiny awards ceremony in which every nominee is himself? Well yes, absolutely, because the mouse house ultimately owns both films.

And yet the most interesting thing about Avengers: Endgame’s return to cinemas is not how much money it has made – for the record, the rerelease, titled Avengers Endgame: Encore, had brought in another $126m worldwide by last weekend, taking its lifetime total to approximately $2.925bn (just ahead of Avatar’s $2.923bn) – but what Marvel added to the picture while we were all busy counting.

Reports that Jon Watts could make a new trilogy about a clan who have already saved and destroyed the galaxy several times over leaves you wishing for a newer world

The Skywalkers: who are they exactly? A family that has moulded the entire Star Wars galaxy in their image, to the extent that nobody can really imagine the long-running space opera without them. An almost endless familial battle between good and evil, featuring absent fathers, secret siblings, murdered mentors, wayward nephews, surprise grandfathers. For nearly half a century they have blown up Death Stars, built Death Stars, destroyed Jedi orders, rebuilt Jedi orders, fallen to the dark side, risen from the dark side, died heroically, come back as ghosts. Star Wars has occasionally attempted to escape them. It has made films and TV shows about stolen Death Star plans, bounty hunters, smugglers and rebels from entirely different corners of the galaxy. Ryan Gosling will soon appear in a Star Wars movie that, as far as we know, has absolutely nothing to do with them. But they have never really gone away, and now they are back, possibly because Disney has run out of ideas for how to take the franchise forward without them.

Deadline reports this week that Lucasfilm has hired Jon Watts to direct the first instalment of a new trilogy continuing the Skywalker saga, written by Simon Kinberg, with Daisy Ridley reportedly being eyed to return as Rey. The films have not yet been greenlit, and there are precious few other details, but Watts does seem an inspired choice, if for no other reason than that he has previously overseen a film – Spider-Man: No Way Home – that was built around the idea that nobody in a long-running franchise needs to remain dead.

The Oscar-winner is voicing Narnia’s wise lion in Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of The Magician’s Nephew, leading to roars of fury from US evangelical commentators

It is a confusing time to be alive, given how often these days Hollywood indulges in revisionism. Who knew that the Wicked Witch of the West was the heroine after all, that Cruella de Vil simply had a difficult childhood, or that Mufasa was adopted? Now it turns out that Aslan, CS Lewis’s messiah with a mane, is a lioness – or at least, may sound like one in Greta Gerwig’s upcoming adaptation of The Magician’s Nephew, because Meryl Streep is providing the voice.

News that the Oscar-winner might be portraying Narnia’s Christ-like big cat first surfaced in April last year, prompting a flurry of complaints from conservative Christians. This week, the naysayers were back after Empire published a first look at the film, along with an interview with Gerwig in which the director confirmed the casting and explained her choice of actor. Streep, it turns out, was hired not because the Barbie director desperately fancied stoking the flames of controversy, but because she needed someone over 70 who could convey both wisdom and childlike wonder.

Two Batman projects are already in the making at DC Studios, but Snyder has set his sights on the classic Frank Miller graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns

There cannot be too many film-makers who have spent quite so long being told that their version of a superhero universe is over, as Zack Snyder has. His Batman is gone, his Superman has been dismantled and the studio that once handed him the keys to DC is now run by James Gunn and Peter Safran, two men whose first order of business was to build something completely different. And yet here he is, determined not to give up, telling anyone who will listen about his proposal to bring the classic Frank Miller graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns to multiplexes.

In an interview with Variety to promote his forthcoming film The Last Photograph, Snyder returned to an idea he has been talking about for years: adapting Miller’s famously grim 1986 vision of an ageing Batman coming out of retirement in a dystopian Gotham. “The reason why it’s The Dark Knight Returns, if anyone would ever let me do it outside of the DC Universe since it’s a novel that just happens to have superheroes in it, is if I could do Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, those two books next to each other, to me, represent the complete cycle of the superhero comic book medium,” the film-maker said.

Sebastian Stan says he pitched Marvel a mid-budget thriller starring his Winter Soldier character. Perhaps the studio should give it – and other modestly scaled vehicles – the green light

Blink a little and you might think we are back in 2019. The latest Spider-Man film, Brand New Day, has just passed $2.4bn at the global box office, to become the third-highest grossing film of all time behind Avatar and Avengers: Endgame. Meanwhile Avengers: Doomsday is reported to have already earned more than $50m in US ticket presales alone, despite the fact that it doesn’t come out until December. Clearly we are in the middle of a superhero renaissance.

And yet it doesn’t really feel like it, largely because it is something of a turnaround for Marvel, after a pretty disappointing 2025 in which all three of the studio’s releases underperformed. Captain America: Brave New World took $415m worldwide, Thunderbolts* managed $382m and even the well-reviewed The Fantastic Four: First Steps stalled at $521m, against a reported $200m budget. These are hardly Madame Web numbers but they do suggest there is still a problem about what to do with all those superheroes who cannot sustain a $300m multiversal extravaganza.

James Gunn and Peter Safran’s regime had good reasons to ditch Ben Affleck’s Batman and Henry Cavill’s Superman. Other choices have been much harder to fathom

There was never going to be a completely painless way to break up the old DC gang. Warner Bros’ DC Extended Universe probably needed to be ruthlessly ripped apart in order to create space for James Gunn and Peter Safran’s brand-new DCU. We almost certainly did need a clean break from the likes of Ben Affleck (Batman) and Henry Cavill (Superman), if only to persuade audiences that this really was a proper reboot. The question, as Gal Gadot may have been pondering this week, is quite why some of the old universe’s supporting players were smuggled safely into the new continuity while others were left sprawling amid the ruins.

Speaking on the Happy Sad Confused podcast, Gadot, who starred in two solo Wonder Woman movies for director Patty Jenkins, revealed that nobody at DC Studios ever formally told her she had been dropped. One minute, Gadot says, she was being assured by Gunn and Safran that they would develop a third instalment with her; the next, she was looking on in mounting alarm as the entire infrastructure of the previous DC continuum was blown to smithereens. “They were like, ‘We’re going to develop it with you, the third one,’” she said. “But I saw the way everybody else was handled, right? And I, you know – the Henry [Cavill] situation was unfortunate. I was in the middle of that. The Henry situation was not handled elegantly, to say the least. Same with Patty – it was not handled elegantly.”

News that Scott is working on a follow-up to his maligned 2017 film leaves me worried the franchise has run out of shocks

If any science-fiction saga looked beyond recovery, it was the Alien franchise. For the 38 years that followed James Cameron’s Aliens, film-makers contrived to find every imaginable way of not making a good Alien film. They tried killing everyone the audience cared about before the opening credits, marooning Sigourney Weaver on a planet populated entirely by bald British character actors, cloning Ripley, pitting xenomorphs against Predators, and sending scientists across the universe to ask an enormous, hairless space bodybuilder why he made them. They even ponied up the thick end of $100m for a film in which Michael Fassbender teaches himself to play the flute.

And then in 2024, we got Fede Álvarez’s Alien: Romulus, in which actual xenomorphs chase actual human beings down actual corridors for the clearly defined purposes of either killing them or putting smaller xenomorphs inside them. Better still, a year later we got Noah Hawley’s Alien: Earth, which reminded us that giant, murderous space insects are in fact less awful than tech trillionaires.

The actor, who plays Red Guardian in the film, made a cryptic comment to Variety that raised more Robert Downey Jr-shaped questions than answers. But was it a clanger, or expert trolling?

Nobody knows exactly what solemn blood oaths Marvel uses to prevent spoilers. But we do know that Andrew Garfield spent most of the run-up to 2021’s Spider-Man: No Way Home – in which he would eventually turn up as one of two secret Spideys – behaving as if Kevin Feige was standing behind him, holding up a giant card saying: YOU HAVE NEVER MET TOBEY MAGUIRE. So we can imagine it’s pretty full on. Why, then, has Avengers: Doomsday star David Harbour this week apparently blurted out the biggest Marvel secret since Ben Kingsley’s Mandarin in Iron Man 3?

Invited by Variety magazine to offer up a line from Doomsday “completely out of context”, Harbour thought for a moment, adopted the Russian accent of his Red Guardian character and came out with: “You … are Tony Stark.” Which is quite a thing to say about a film whose entire marketing campaign so far has depended on us accepting that Iron Man remains dead, and that the actor who used to play him, Robert Downey Jr, is playing Victor von Doom instead.

The director’s cut includes a host more body parts but no more insight into the villains’ personalities. What could be a gothic masterstroke is turned into a dreary procedural in the snow

Warning: this article contains spoilers

Everyone loves a director’s cut. But unlike some, The X-Files: I Want to Believe – Vrach Frankenshteyn, which debuted on Friday on Disney+, is not the kind of director’s cut that will radically alter critical perspectives on the original 2008 film. Much has been made, mainly by director and X-Files creator Chris Carter, of the new version’s grisly additions. But there is still so much about this movie that is underwritten, preposterous and lacking in basic dramatic intrigue that upping its body horror quotient merely makes the same old problems slightly more unpleasant to look at. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this new version is hidden away behind the “Extras” tab for the original film.

For those who have sensibly forgotten, I Want to Believe reunites Mulder (David Duchovny) and Scully (Gillian Anderson) several years after their departure from the FBI, when a female agent disappears and the bureau’s only lead comes from a disgraced former Catholic priest (Billy Connolly) who claims to be receiving psychic visions. So far, so X-Files. The priest, Father Joe, is a convicted paedophile who abused dozens of altar boys, which gives Scully some fairly understandable reservations about accepting his apparent supernatural gifts at face value.

The director has yet again hinted that he may step away – but if he does actually relinquish control, it would likely benefit the franchise

After directing the highest-grossing film trilogy of all time, and having spent more than two decades bending technology, studio executives and several hundred million dollars’ worth of underwater motion capture to his will, James Cameron this week signalled that he may be ready to hand the future of the Avatar franchise to another director. Indeed, he bent Hollywood to his will so completely that it became almost impossible in the early 2010s to watch a blockbuster without uncomfortable plastic glasses, and without objects on the screen being hurled pointlessly towards the audience. Still, the Canadian film-maker now appears to be seriously considering handing over everyone’s favourite multibillion-dollar bioluminescent space jungle to someone else.

“There’s been momentum in the Avatar universe for 21 years at this point because we started in 2005,” Cameron told Denise Donlon in an interview for Canada’s governor general’s performing arts awards. “It’s been kind of an unbroken continuum. So this is the point where I’m looking at the landscape and asking, ‘What are the other stories I want to tell? How many of them do I need to direct myself versus writing and/or producing with other film-makers?’”

Now you’ve seen the new Spidey, let’s talk about new baddies (or are they goodies?), X-Men alumni, painful relationships and a potential Spidey-pig

• This article contains spoilers for Spider-Man: Brand New Day

There was a danger that Spider-Man: Brand New Day might amount to little more than a palate cleanser between the multiversal excesses of No Way Home and the all-star chaos of Avengers: Doomsday. Why not just keep it small: a more grounded tale of New York crime-fighting, to keep the Marvel machine rolling before the inevitable return of world-ending stakes? Instead, the studio, once again in partnership with Spider-Man rights holder Sony, has produced a gamechanging comic book epic whose effects will continue being felt for years to come.

The film’s biggest twist is significant enough on its own, but Brand New Day keeps widening the implications long after the initial shock has started to wear off. Characters who seemed to exist for one purpose gradually reveal another. Throwaway conversations acquire unexpected significance. New gadgets, strange abilities and apparently routine subplots all hint at much broader shifts taking place beneath the familiar web-slinging adventure. By the time the credits have rolled, the film has answered some longstanding questions, raised several more, and left audiences with a surprisingly clear idea of where the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) could be heading next.

After coveting the role for years, Gosling has been announced as the new Ghost Rider – a superhero stunt rider with powers bestowed by Satan. Is this a smart move all round or has he sold his soul to the devil?

Steven Spielberg once said: “If a person can tell me the idea in 25 words or less, it’s going to make a pretty good movie.” And Marvel’s most popular big-screen superheroes can be described using less than half that number. Iron Man is a tech bro in a tin suit; Spider-Man has the powers of an arachnid; Thor is a Norse god. Go and watch a film featuring any of these characters and you know exactly what you’re going to get.

But then there is Ghost Rider, who, according to reports from San Diego Comic-Con last week, will be the subject of a new Marvel Cinematic Universe film directed by Deadpool & Wolverine’s Shawn Levy, and starring Ryan Gosling. There is no quick way to explain what is going on with this guy. In the 1972 origin story, stunt motorcyclist Johnny Blaze sells his soul to Satan to save his adoptive father from cancer. The cure works but its beneficiary is killed almost immediately. The devil then tries to claim Johnny’s soul and, when that fails, binds him to the demon Zarathos. This, if Christopher Marlowe is to be believed, ought to result in corruption, despair and eternal, fiery damnation. Yet somehow our hero emerges from the arrangement with a cool flaming skull, vast supernatural powers and a motorbike capable of riding up buildings and across dimensions. Blaze regards the whole arrangement as a curse, but to the casual observer his principal penance is to roam the Earth passing judgment on people more wicked than he is, while looking good in a leather jacket.

Ryan Reynolds’ sarcastic superhero is rumoured to be in Avengers: Doomsday – but how is he going to fit in the MCU proper when he spent all of his previous film mocking it?

How do you solve a problem like Deadpool in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Deadpool & Wolverine found a way: rather than integrate the bloodthirsty, fourth-wall-breaking merc with a mouth into the rather more sanitised world of Thor, Iron Man and Spider-Man, Shawn Levy’s 2024 film chose to lampoon it from the outside instead. Why bother to make everyone’s favourite chimichanga-munching mutant fit when you can make the fact that he doesn’t the entire joke? Why become another cog in the Marvel machine when you can stand beside it, point out the loose screws and watch the box-office greenbacks roll in like it’s Christmas 2019?

Deadpool & Wolverine made $1.3bn worldwide, becoming the second highest grossing film of 2024 and the highest grossing R-rated film ever. But it did absolutely nothing to introduce Ryan Reynolds’ potty-mouthed antihero into the MCU, unless one counts the several thousand jokes about Kevin Feige. By the end of the movie, Deadpool seems no closer to becoming the saviour of Marvel than Happy Hogan is to wielding Mjolnir. He remains a sarcastic observer from the sidelines, less a vital MCU character than its resident heckler.

The Lord of the Rings author’s debt to Norse mythology is simply irrelevant when it comes to the appearance of hobbits and elves on screen today

Casting has come a long way since the early 1980s when it was somehow still acceptable to sign up Max von Sydow to play Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon in 1980, or hire Peter Ustinov as the lead in Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen in 1981 (despite protests at the time). These days, film-makers will have to defend an all-white cast in a medieval fantasy flick, which appears to be what has happened this week to The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum’s Andy Serkis.

Asked by the BBC why every major casting for the new film has been a white actor, Serkis appeared to lay the blame on his literary source material. “Tolkien himself was influenced a lot by Norse mythology, there’s a lot of that feeling,” he said. “The Shire feels very, very much like a very, a very white, you know … They’re not very concerned about what goes on beyond the borders of the Shire, but they know they don’t want people coming in.

Introducing a new sadistic psychopath and a corrupt secret society of Gotham grandees would mean Harvey Dent takes a backseat to Victor Zsasz and the Court of Owls

Matt Reeves’ The Batman was a strange beast from the beginning. Perhaps not comic-book weird in the usual sense – no cosmic portals or rubber nipples here – but strange all the same. This was a Gotham where Bruce Wayne seemed to have been styled by the ghost of Kurt Cobain, the Riddler appeared to have escaped from a David Fincher evidence locker, and the whole city looked as if it had been left to soak overnight in rainwater and civic corruption. The expectation was that Reeves would begin rolling back the bizarre in part two, perhaps leaving us with a more orthodox Batverse populated with mobsters and corrupt lawyers. Sebastian Stan seemed central to this, with rumours suggesting he would portray Harvey Dent/Two-Face, perhaps alongside Scarlett Johansson as his wife, Gilda.

In the last week, however, there have been suggestions that the sequel might just be priming itself for something a fair bit freakier. Hollywood industry veteran Jeff Sneider is reporting that the main antagonist this time around could be the Court of Owls, a sinister secret society of Gotham grandees who look at first glance like a murder-bird upgrade on the League of Shadows, but are really something nastier: the city’s masked, devious ruling class, living out of secret rooms and exploiting a property portfolio that probably goes back to the Pilgrims.

Cinematic universes rely on audiences investing in minor characters – but as that interest wanes, it may be up to the big guns to keep the genre afloat

It’s sometimes hard to believe that modern Superman movies existed for nearly four decades before the Man of Steel met Batman on the big screen. Since 2008, when Iron Man first clanged into life, we’ve become used to superhero cinema as one giant, interlocking machine: capes, gods, aliens and magic rocks all rattling around the same cosmic pinball table. There have been dozens of these comic book films, often built around characters once little known to the average cinemagoer: Rocket Raccoon, Ant-Man, Blue Beetle.

Until recently, audiences lapped up each new arrival like an all-you-can-eat superhero buffet. It felt as if there would always be another dusty helmet, glowing cube or giant talking tree waiting in the great comic book attic to be transformed into a billion-dollar proposition. Nobody expected the well to run dry this soon. Which brings us somewhat awkwardly to Supergirl’s disastrous box office.

Craig Gillespie’s far-out adventure is something of a quirky oddity compared to bigger blockbuster outings – so why is it failing to fly at the box office?

James Gunn’s Superman was the major make-or-break moment for DC’s latest cinematic reboot. And yet its follow-up may ultimately prove just as revealing, not least because it offers up a first real indication of the kind of universe Gunn intends to build once the novelty of the man of steel’s return has worn off. Will every chapter of the DCU be chained to the kind of world-saving spectacle we remember from the older Zack Snyder films? Or is there room for stranger, smaller stories to take place in the same shared reality?

With Supergirl, the answer appears to be yes. Craig Gillespie’s film heads in some unexpectedly far-out directions, makes one particularly bold change from its source material, Tom King and Bilquis Evely’s acclaimed comic Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, and quietly suggests that DC’s greatest strength may lie not just in trying to out-Marvel Marvel. Here’s the lowdown for those who’ve seen it – and don’t forget to let us know your thoughts in the comments on how this affects Gunn’s wider universe.