The music phenomenon of the moment is called Choosin’ Texas, an apparently innocuous country-pop song performed by Ella Langley, a 27-year-old artist from Alabama. The track, which tells the story of a love triangle in which someone inevitably gets hurt, has spent 24 weeks as the best-selling song in the United States. No song has stayed that long at number one on the Billboard Hot 100, the country’s official chart, which is calculated using a formula that incorporates streaming, download sales, and radio airplay.
Passou pelas secretas russas, trabalhou nas Forças Armadas e criou rede que partilhava conteúdos pró-guerra. Foi detido no Montenegro quando se preparava para gravar vídeo num mosteiro.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez delivered an institutional address from La Moncloa, the seat of government in Spain, to announce that a snap general election will be held on November 29.
No espaço público e mediático, o tratamento do sistema prisional português tende a ser tratado pelo ângulo dos «abusos» e do que terá corrido mal para se verificarem condições penitenciárias «degradantes» ou até doença e morte. Mas quais as características estruturais que produzem estas condições, e o que dizem elas sobre desigualdades sistémicas que as democracias não resolveram? «As prisões têm olhos e ouvidos, mas não têm vozes» Mumia Abu Jamal, jornalista aprisionado nos Estados (…)
Ce serait la fusion du siècle. Paramount rachète Warner. C'est déjà une histoire exemplaire. Le casting : un transhumaniste et son fils, le Tout-Hollywood et des journalistes épouvantés.
En 1966, Gulf+Western, fabricant de butées à ressort pour portes coulissantes, acquiert le géant du cinéma Paramount. Depuis une trentaine d'années, le mouvement de fusions et d'absorptions est en plein élan à Hollywood. Tous les grands studios « ont fini par se faire manger par des multinationales étrangères au monde de l'art et de la culture », observent les chercheurs Martin Barnier et Laurent Jullier (1). Le capitalisme de prédation poursuit aujourd'hui son avancée, à la faveur de l'essor du streaming et de l'arrivée récente des entreprises de la « tech » dans ce secteur. C'est un enjeu non seulement financier, mais aussi politique et artistique.
Depuis la crise du Covid-19, les plates-formes de vidéo à la demande dominent le marché mondial de la vidéo. Avec plus de 325 millions d'abonnés dans le monde, Netflix mène la danse devant Prime Video (220 millions) et Disney + (130 millions), accompagnés de HBO Max (140 millions) et Paramount + (79 millions). Chacun de ces mastodontes lorgne tout ce qui peut grossir et embellir son catalogue d'exclusivités.
À l'été 2025, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), conglomérat en difficulté depuis une série de restructurations malheureuses, annonce vouloir se scinder en deux entreprises indépendantes. La première doit contrôler les studios de production (cinéma et télévision), la plate-forme de streaming Max, rebaptisée HBO Max, ainsi que les parcs à thème. La seconde doit regrouper les réseaux de télévision du groupe, dont les chaînes Cable News Network (CNN) et Discovery, en perte de vitesse. Cette scission suscite immédiatement la convoitise de Paramount Skydance (PSKY) et de Netflix.
Début d'un feuilleton tout en rebondissements, mêlant milliards, pouvoir et coups tordus. Lors du dernier trimestre 2025, Paramount lance trois offres d'achat successives. Pourtant, le 5 décembre, c'est Netflix qui gagne : le groupe annonce le rachat de Warner, pour 83 milliards de dollars — remboursement des 11 milliards de dette de WBD compris. Trois ans plus tôt, Amazon, propriétaire de la plate-forme Prime Video, s'était emparé de la Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) pour dix fois moins.
L'accord ne porte pas sur la totalité du groupe : CNN n'en fait par exemple pas partie. Netflix enrichira d'abord sa plate-forme, et avant tout des films de l'historique studio Warner (Casablanca, Citizen Kane, etc.), mais aussi d'une soixantaine de franchises — produits dérivés compris —, dont Harry Potter, Le Seigneur des anneaux ou encore Batman, sans oublier les grandes séries produites et diffusées par HBO comme Sex and the City, Les Soprano, Six Feet Under, Sur écoute (The Wire) et Game of Thrones. Une concentration majuscule, qui agit comme un séisme sur ce marché des contenus, soulevant l'inquiétude des professionnels de Hollywood. Ils n'ont encore rien vu.
Derrière Paramount se trouve en effet un proche du président américain. Transhumaniste, membre de l'American Legislative Exchange Council — un lobby militant pour le démantèlement du droit du travail, des régulations environnementales, la privatisation de l'éducation et contre les droits des personnes lesbiennes, gays, bisexuelles et trans (LGBT) —, M. Larry Ellison a fondé la société Oracle (bases de données, logiciels d'entreprise, cloud…). Il est l'un des hommes les plus riches du monde, et l'un des principaux mécènes privés de l'armée israélienne. Des milliers d'entreprises à travers le monde — dont la Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), BNP Paribas ou encore Orange — utilisent les produits d'Oracle. Des États aussi : Oracle fournit les centres de données et les infrastructures de surveillance utilisées par Tel-Aviv.
En janvier 2026, grâce au soutien de M. Trump, Oracle devient l'un des trois principaux actionnaires de la nouvelle filiale américaine de TikTok — après que le président américain avait accusé l'ancienne de favoriser les positions propalestiniennes. L'entreprise de M. Ellison assure notamment la sécurité des données et de l'algorithme du réseau social (2). Et elle vient d'être choisie pour construire des capacités de calcul et des services de cloud au bénéfice d'OpenAI dans le cadre du projet Stargate.
M. Larry Ellison a également un fils qu'il a placé à la tête de la société de production Skydance. À l'été 2024, M. David Ellison annonce le rachat de Paramount Global, qui compte parmi ses filiales Paramount Pictures et la chaîne généraliste la plus regardée aux États-Unis, CBS. M. Trump bloque la transaction, d'un montant de 8 milliards de dollars, pendant un an car il reproche à la chaîne d'avoir diffusé un entretien avec Mme Kamala Harris au cours duquel la candidate démocrate aurait tenu des propos mensongers sur la guerre menée à Gaza par Israël. La Maison Blanche ne donne son feu vert à l'absorption de Paramount par Skydance qu'une fois ce litige réglé. Début juillet 2025, un accord judiciaire met un terme à la procédure : Paramount Skydance, dirigée par M. David Ellison, accepte de verser 16 millions de dollars à M. Trump. Proche de la mouvance MAGA (« Make America Great Again »), le président de la Federal Communications Commission (FCC), instance régulatrice des télécommunications, se réjouit des futurs changements de la ligne éditoriale de CBS (3). Effectivement, changement il y a. Le « Late show », émission-phare de la chaîne, est arrêté : son animateur, Stephen Colbert, avait qualifié le pacte conclu entre Paramount et M. Trump de « bon gros pot-de-vin ». Arrivée à la tête de CBS News, Bari Weiss, journaliste classée très à droite, s'emploie à en faire un nouveau pôle de soutien à l'administration Trump.
C'est dans le même état d'esprit, et avec les mêmes méthodes, que M. David Ellison se rend à Washington trois jours après l'annonce du rachat partiel de Warner par Netflix (4). Il promet de modifier radicalement la ligne de CNN si le pouvoir l'aide à acquérir la totalité de Warner — groupe qui pèse pourtant près de cinq fois la valorisation boursière de l'entreprise qu'il dirige, 69 milliards de dollars contre 14. M. Trump rêve depuis longtemps de faire de CNN un média à sa botte, à la manière de Fox News et, désormais, de CBS. Le 7 décembre 2025, il exprime publiquement des doutes sur le rachat de Warner par Netflix et annonce vouloir « s'impliquer dans la décision ». Aussitôt, Paramount lance une offre publique d'achat (OPA) hostile en proposant directement aux actionnaires de WBD 31 dollars par titre, soit une prime de 147 %.
Le montant de l'offensive s'élève à 111 milliards de dollars et, à la différence de l'accord passé entre Netflix et WBD, porte sur le rachat de l'intégralité du groupe — CNN compris. C'est un tournant historique pour l'industrie des médias. En février, M. Trump exige le licenciement de Mme Susan Rice, membre du conseil d'administration de Netflix. Ancienne conseillère à la sécurité nationale sous la présidence Obama puis directrice du Domestic Policy Council (« conseil de politique intérieure ») de l'administration Biden, Mme Rice venait d'affirmer que les institutions et entreprises américaines complaisantes avec l'administration Trump devraient être poursuivies en justice une fois les démocrates revenus au pouvoir. M. Theodore (« Ted ») Sarandos, codirecteur général de Netflix, fait la sourde oreille. Il est convoqué à la Maison Blanche. Le lendemain, Netflix déclare renoncer à l'achat de Warner. Et empoche une indemnité de rupture de 2,8 milliards de dollars, réglée par M. David Ellison.
Sur un plan purement industriel, l'acquisition de Warner permettrait à M. David Ellison de changer d'échelle en fusionnant HBO Max et Paramount +, la plate-forme de Paramount Skydance, déficitaire. Malgré la promesse des dirigeants de la future entité de maintenir une production de films importante et un temps d'exploitation en salles de quarante-cinq jours (ce qui, en général, est réservé aux blockbusters), il paraît évident que l'exclusivité de ces productions, au même titre que celle des séries, restera un produit d'appel pour les abonnés. Sans parler de la nature des futures productions, dont les choix éditoriaux risquent d'être influencés par l'hostilité antiwoke des républicains. L'inquiétude grandit également parmi les journalistes de CNN, qui craignent une mise au pas. En mars dernier, CNN insinuait que l'administration Trump n'avait pas anticipé les conséquences du conflit avec l'Iran. Aussitôt, le secrétaire à la guerre Peter Hegseth avait sonné la charge : « Il est grand temps que David Ellison prenne les rênes de CNN, et le plus tôt sera le mieux » (13 mars 2026).
La « fusion du siècle », valorisée à 170 milliards de dollars, est une affaire de famille. Une grande famille. Le montage financier est ouvertement élaboré par M. Jared Kushner, gendre et conseiller de M. Trump. Trois fonds souverains des pays du Golfe avec lesquels M. Kushner entretient des liens étroits entrent au capital. M. Larry Ellison fait également partie du tour de table, aux côtés d'une société d'investissement spécialisée dans le sport. L'opération repose sur 40 milliards de dollars de fonds propres, complétés par un emprunt bancaire à hauteur de 54 milliards de dollars. De quoi alourdir considérablement le passif de la nouvelle structure.
Les professionnels de Hollywood qui dénoncent une concentration du secteur appuyée par le pouvoir gardent en mémoire l'acquisition de la 21st Century Fox par Disney en 2019 — qui avait entraîné une production de films réduite de moitié et une vague de licenciements. La contestation prend de l'ampleur, mais il ne faut guère compter sur les régulateurs pour s'opposer à la fusion. En juin, la division antitrust du ministère de la justice américain donne son feu vert à l'opération, estimant qu'elle n'est pas « susceptible de nuire à la concurrence ni aux consommateurs américains » (Le Monde, 13 juin 2026). Elle aurait même pour effet d'« accroître la compétition dans l'ensemble de l'écosystème des médias et du divertissement, avec des bénéfices pour les consommateurs et les travailleurs américains ». Quelques semaines plus tard, la Commission européenne autorise à son tour l'opération, avec des réserves (5). Au Royaume-Uni, l'autorité de la concurrence et des marchés approuve également le rachat, après avoir obtenu des garanties concernant la diversité des services de diffusion audiovisuelle et de vidéo à la demande. De son côté, l'Union internationale des cinémas (UNIC) regrette que des sujets majeurs tels que la diversité des films et la préservation du volume de production aient été peu abordés, et appelle pieusement à la vigilance.
La seule lueur d'espoir des opposants résidait dans l'action intentée devant un tribunal de Californie par douze États et appuyée par le syndicat des scénaristes (Writers Guild of America, WGA). Selon le procureur chargé du dossier, ces États, tous dirigés par les démocrates, luttaient « pour des marchés libres et équitables, pas des marchés truqués ». Un procès pour entorse aux lois sur la concurrence aurait donc dû avoir lieu. Ce ne fut pas le cas. Un accord à l'amiable vient d'être trouvé, le 21 septembre, mais il doit être validé par une juge fédérale de Californie. Selon le procureur, seules des cessions d'actifs permettraient de remédier aux problèmes soulevés par la fusion.
Le processus devait prendre fin en septembre 2026. Au-delà de cette date, Paramount Skydance s'était engagé à verser des pénalités de retard aux actionnaires de Warner à hauteur de 7 millions de dollars… par jour. La menace du procès, prévu en mars 2027, a conduit Paramount à obtenir un report de la clôture de l'opération au 1er juin 2027 au plus tard. Désormais, il lui faut boucler l'opération avant les élections de mi-mandat, qui risquent de modifier le rapport de forces à Washington ; le procès risque de la mettre sérieusement en péril. La série n'est pas finie.
(5) Paramount s'est, de ce fait, engagé à céder sa participation dans United International Pictures, société de distribution de films hors territoire américain, codétenue par Universal.
On September 20, 2006, Hugo Chávez stepped up to the granite podium of the United Nations General Assembly. A day earlier, from that exact same spot, the President of the United States, George W. Bush, had spoken. Chávez crossed himself, said that the room still smelled of sulphur, and the hall burst into laughter and applause. It was not the speech Chávez had originally intended to give, but rather the direct result of the deep indignation caused by hearing Bush speak as if he owned the world. The major media of the North latched onto the sulphur phrase and have tried to caricature it. But it is the rest of his intervention that remains fully relevant, 20 years later.
Chávez arrived at the General Assembly with a book in hand, “Hegemony or Survival” by Noam Chomsky. His warning was simple yet devastating: the United States’s pretense of dominating the world put the very survival of the human species at risk. At that time, US troops were occupying Iraq. A few weeks earlier, Israel had bombed Lebanon under Washington’s diplomatic protection. In the capitals of the global north, the “end of history” was still being celebrated, the idea that liberal capitalism was humanity’s definitive horizon. Chávez said that this thesis had been proven false in barely a decade, and that now the future of the world had to be defined.
Twenty years later, plunged into an even greater systemic crisis, we can see that every phrase of Chávez’s speech remains relevant.
From hegemony to hyper-imperialism
In 2006, the United States seemed like an empire at the peak of its power. Today it is an empire in relative decline, and therefore more dangerous. The Tricontinental Institute for Social Research has called this new stage hyper-imperialism: imperialism exercised in an exaggerated and agitated manner by a power that compensates for the loss of its economic hegemony by relying on the two areas where it still dominates, war and the control of information.
An empire’s hegemony is usually lost in three stages: first in production, then in finance, and finally in the military. The United States has already lost productive primacy: China is today the world’s largest economy measured by purchasing power parity. The reign of the dollar is beginning to be questioned, and many countries are opting for transactions in their own currencies. But military supremacy remains intact. The bloc led by Washington groups around 50 countries and concentrates about three-quarters of global military spending. The United States maintains around 900 military bases abroad. More than one in four countries on the planet lives under its sanctions.
An empire that declines economically while retaining its weapons is tempted to resolve its decline by force. The dilemma that Chávez borrowed from Chomsky, hegemony or survival, has become literal. Permanent war and climate catastrophe today threaten the very conditions of life.
The veto and the UN that doesn’t work
The least-cited part of the speech was perhaps the most prophetic. Chávez stated that the United Nations system born after World War II had collapsed. The General Assembly had become a merely deliberative space, without the capacity to change the terrible reality of the world. Back then, Chávez made four concrete proposals:
First, expand the Security Council to include Third World countries as permanent members. Second, create transparent methods for conflict resolution. Third, eliminate the veto, and fourth, strengthen the General Secretariat.
His example was Lebanon: a US veto had allowed the country to be torn apart before the eyes of the world. Unfortunately, over two decades, the UN’s strength to prevent wars and genocides has progressively diminished. That same mechanism criticized by Chávez has allowed a new genocide in Gaza. That inaction of multilateralism permitted the kidnapping of the sitting Venezuelan president. However, the conclusion is not to abandon the UN, but to contest it.
The debate on a “multipolarity” that reproduces rivalry between great powers is insufficient. What the South needs is true multilateralism, defending the United Nations Charter as the common heritage of the world’s peoples. It is the same Charter upon which, in 1955, the ten principles of the Bandung Conference were built.
“We are men and women of the South”
Chávez did not arrive in New York alone. He came from Havana, where more than fifty heads of state had just relaunched the Non-Aligned Movement. “Havana was the capital of the South for a week,” he said. And then he added a phrase that sums up a political identity: “we are men and women of the South.”
The Global South is not a cardinal point. Australia is in the southern hemisphere and belongs to the North; Cuba, Vietnam, or Burkina Faso are in the northern hemisphere and belong to the South. It is a historical category: they are the peoples of former colonies and semi-colonies and socialist projects, whose struggle for sovereignty has not yet concluded. Their weight has changed. By 2007, the economies of the South surpassed those of the North in purchasing power parity, and in recent years they came to represent nearly 60 percent of world product. BRICS and the Belt and Road Initiative have begun to create something that did not exist in Bandung’s time: material conditions for cooperation among the peoples of the South.
But, although there is a new mood in the Global South today, the spirit of Bandung is not yet there. In 1955, the strength of those governments came from organized masses that prevented them from abandoning the liberation program. Chávez’s speech was precisely that: the voice of Latin American twenty-first-century socialism, of peoples pushing their governments. It was, for Latin America, a kind of Bandung from below. Today, that spirit faces an “angry tide” and needs to be rebuilt.
Peoples, not governments
There is a fundamental element in that 2006 speech that we cannot forget. Chávez distinguished between the US government and its people. He said that if one walked through the Bronx or San Francisco, one would find people who want peace. The working class of the North, impoverished and battered by deindustrialization, is not the enemy of the peoples of the South. It is a possible ally. Specially today when it is persecuted by a renewed McCarthyism that sees terrorism in those who raise their voices for social justice.
When Bush accused those who opposed his war of being extremists, Chávez replied that it was not about extremism: the world was awakening and peoples were rising everywhere. Today, aggression takes multiple forms. It takes the face of military actions, lawfare, unilateral coercive measures, or the confiscation of national resources. But its objective remains the same: to discipline anyone attempting a sovereign path.
The future doesn’t just arrive; we must organize it
The speech closed on a note of optimism. Chávez said that there was a dawn on the planet, visible in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Twenty years later, that optimism requires precision. The future is not a date on the calendar, but a rupture that must be built. Hope is not passive expectation, but a practice that requires organization, discipline, and internationalism.
The sulphur that Chávez smelled in 2006 has not dissipated; it has grown denser and spread beyond the diplomatic corridors of New York. That is why that speech does not belong to a record of the past, but to our current agenda. It reminds us that the South has a voice, that the UN can and must be contested, and that the North’s hegemony is not a natural law. What is missing, as in Bandung, is what has always made the difference: the peoples must organize.
Carlos Ron is Co-coordinator of the Nuestra America office ofTricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He was a Venezuelan diplomat and served as Vice Minister for North America (2018-2025).
Saying that Cuba is in crisis is hardly news. It has been for decades. Nor is it news that Washington’s sanctions have worsened the health of an economy that is now on life support. Both statements are axioms. But talking about Havana is a high-risk sport.
What film brought them together? 'Jamón, jamón' (1992), directed by Bigas Luna. But their romance did not truly begin until 15 years later, during the filming of 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona,' with Woody Allen and Scarlett Johansson as unlikely witnesses.
What happened next? The second chance worked. They married in 2010 and are now parents of two children.
And now? They are sharing the screen once again in 'Bunker,' which has just premiered at the Venice Film Festival.
What film brought them together? 'Vanilla Sky' (2001), the Hollywood remake of Alejandro Amenábar's 'Abre los ojos.' (Open Your Eyes).
What happened next? The two embarked on a relationship that lasted about three years before ending in 2004.
Why did they split? A combination of intense media scrutiny, conflicting schedules and religious differences. Cruise is a devoted member of the Church of Scientology, while Cruz did not share his commitment to the faith.
Who are they? Penélope Cruz and Matthew McConaughey.
What film brought them together? The adventure movie 'Sahara' (2005), where they met shortly after Cruz's relationship with Tom Cruise had ended.
What happened next? Their on-screen chemistry quickly turned into a real-life romance.
How long did it last? Just over a year. They split in 2006, citing the distance between them and the demands of their respective careers as the main reasons for the breakup.
What film brought them together? 'Days of Thunder' (1990), in which they played a race-car driver and a doctor who fall in love.
What happened next? They married later that year, adopted two children and became one of Hollywood's most famous couples. Their marriage lasted a decade before they separated in 2001 and finalized their divorce later that year.
Why did they split? Kidman later spoke about living in the shadow of her husband's fame. Media reports and subsequent accounts also pointed to several factors behind the breakup, including the couple's demanding careers and Cruise's deep involvement with the Church of Scientology.
What film brought them together? 'Spider-Man: Homecoming' (2017), in which they played Peter Parker and MJ.
What happened next? The chemistry between their characters eventually carried over into real life, though they did not publicly confirm their relationship until 2021.
And then? They got engaged in 2025 and married in a secret ceremony this year, with no wedding photos or details of the bride's dress leaked so far. They have also reunited on screen in the latest Spider-Man film, which has become another major box-office success.
What film brought them together? 'Mr. & Mrs. Smith' (2005), in which they played a married pair of assassins unaware of each other's true identity.
What happened next? Pitt separated from Jennifer Aniston and began a relationship with Jolie. Together they built one of Hollywood's most famous families, raising six children, three biological and three adopted.
And then? They married in 2014 but split two years later, setting off a long and bitter legal battle that was finally resolved years later. Many of their children have since distanced themselves from their father, with several choosing to drop the Pitt surname.
What film brought them together? 'Se7en' (1995), David Fincher's thriller in which Paltrow played the wife of the detective portrayed by Pitt.
What happened next? Paltrow has said it was close to love at first sight. The couple became one of Hollywood's most glamorous pairings and even got engaged.
Why did they split? Their careers were just taking off and, by their own account, they were too young for such a serious commitment. They ended their relationship in 1997. Nearly three decades later, Paltrow still speaks warmly of Pitt and considers him a good friend.
Who are they? Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.
What film brought them together? 'Cleopatra' (1963), in which Taylor played the Egyptian queen and Burton portrayed Mark Antony.
What happened next? Their off-screen romance proved every bit as dramatic as the film itself. Both were married when the relationship began, sparking one of Hollywood's most notorious scandals. They divorced their respective spouses and married in 1964.
And then? After a decade together, they divorced in 1974, remarried the following year and divorced again in 1976. Their relationship was defined by passion, volatility and an enduring professional bond. Over the years, they appeared together in more than a 11 films.
What film brought them together? 'The Notebook' (2004), in which they played Noah and Allie, lovers separated by circumstance who eventually reunite in one of the most beloved screen romances of the 21st century.
What happened next? Despite reportedly clashing during filming, complete with arguments and tensions on set, the two eventually grew close. As the saying goes, there's a fine line between love and hate, and they crossed it in the opposite direction.
And then? They began dating in 2005, became one of Hollywood's most popular young couples and ultimately ended their relationship in 2007.
What film brought them together? 'The Place Beyond the Pines' (2012), in which they played former lovers who reconnect after he discovers he is the father of her child.
What happened next? They began dating during filming and, more than a decade later, are still together. They married in secret, have two daughters and have built one of Hollywood's most enduring and private relationships, rarely appearing together in public.
Who are they? Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart.
What film brought them together? 'Twilight' (2008), the defining young-adult phenomenon of its generation, in which they played star-crossed teenage lovers Edward Cullen and Bella Swan.
What happened next? They were together for more than four years before photographs emerged of Stewart kissing director Rupert Sanders, triggering a crisis that ultimately ended the relationship. The couple briefly reconciled, but split for good in 2013.
What film brought them together? 'Green Lantern' (2011), a superhero blockbuster that may have disappointed at the box office but proved far more successful as a matchmaker.
What happened next? They began dating shortly after filming, married in 2012 and have since become one of Hollywood's most enduring couples. They have four children and are famous for turning social media into a friendly battleground of marital teasing and one-upmanship.
Who are they? Michael Fassbender and Alicia Vikander.
What film brought them together? 'The Light Between Oceans,' which began filming in 2014. They played a married couple living in a lighthouse whose lives are transformed after they find a baby.
What happened next? They married in a small, private ceremony in Ibiza in 2017 and have two children. More than a decade after meeting, they are still together and continue to keep their family life largely out of the spotlight.
What film brought them together? 'To Have and Have Not' (1944), which marked Bacall's film debut at the age of 19.
What happened next? Neither their age gap, he was 44, nor Bogart's marriage prevented them from falling in love during filming. Bogart eventually divorced his wife, and the two married in 1945. They remained together until his death in 1957 and had two children.
What series brought them together? 'The Americans,' in which they played Philip and Elizabeth Jennings, a married couple of Soviet spies living undercover in the United States.
What happened next? The chemistry between Philip and Elizabeth did not stay on screen. Rhys and Russell began a relationship in 2013 and have a son together, though they have never married.
What's the twist? Rhys had actually tried to ask Russell out years earlier, but she turned him down the first time around.
What film brought them together? 'Dream House' (2011), in which they played a married couple.
What happened next? The two had known each other for years, but their relationship began during filming. They married later that year in a private ceremony in New York attended by just four guests. They are still together and have a daughter
What series brought them together? 'Game of Thrones,' in which they played Jon Snow and Ygritte, lovers destined for one of the show's most tragic romances.
What happened next? Their on-screen relationship blossomed into a real-life one. They married in Scotland in 2018 at Leslie's family castle and have two children together.
What series brought them together? 'Fargo,' whose second season cast them as a married couple caught up in a criminal conspiracy.
What happened next? They got engaged a year after they started dating and have two children together. They eventually married in 2022 and later reunited on screen in 'The Power of the Dog,' earning Oscar nominations for their performances.
What film brought them together? 'Volunteers' (1985), in which they starred together after first meeting a few years earlier on the television series 'Bosom Buddies.'
What happened next? That second collaboration cemented a relationship that has endured ever since. They married in 1988, have two children and are considered one of Hollywood's longest-lasting and most stable couples.
Who are they? Ewan McGregor and Mary Elizabeth Winstead.
What series brought them together? 'Fargo.' In the third season, filmed in 2016, McGregor played twin brothers, while Winstead portrayed the fiancée of one of them.
What happened next? Both were in relationships when they fell in love. Winstead was married to director Riley Stearns, while McGregor had been married to Eve Mavrakis for 22 years and had four daughters with her. They ended their respective marriages, welcomed a son in 2021 and married in 2022.
What film brought them together? 'Brokeback Mountain' (2005). Their co-star Jake Gyllenhaal has said that there were already “sparks” between them during the very first table read.
What happened next? They shared a brief but intense romance. Within months of meeting, they were engaged and expecting their only child together, a daughter named Matilda. After three years, they announced their separation in September 2007, just a few months before the death of Ledger, who would go on to earn acclaim for his portrayal of the Joker in 'The Dark Knight.'
What film brought them together? 'The Oranges' (2011), a largely forgettable comedy that paired two of the biggest stars of 2000s television.
What happened next? Brody was in a relationship at the time, so their connection did not develop immediately. Two years later, they got together, married in 2014 and are now parents of two children.
What film brought them together? 'Gigli,' a film widely regarded as one of Hollywood's most notorious flops and a major box-office failure.
What happened next? Perhaps the better question is: what didn't happen? Lopez divorced her second husband, dancer Cris Judd, to be with Affleck. The media frenzy surrounding the couple was so intense that they became known simply as “Bennifer.” They got engaged, called off their wedding just days before it was due to take place and eventually went their separate ways, moving on with Marc Anthony and Jennifer Garner, respectively.
And then? Nearly two decades later, in 2021, they reunited and finally made it down the aisle. But their second chance lasted less than three years. The question now is whether there will ever be a third.
What film brought them together? 'Daredevil' (2003), although they had first met a couple of years earlier while filming 'Pearl Harbor.'
What happened next? Both were in relationships during the making of 'Daredevil.' Garner was married to actor Scott Foley, while Affleck was engaged to Jennifer Lopez. Their romance began later, and they married in 2005.
And then? They had three children and remained together for a decade before announcing their separation in 2015. Despite the breakup, they have maintained a close friendship, and Garner has publicly supported Affleck through his struggles with alcoholism.
What film brought them together? 'Gattaca' (1997), now considered a classic of 1990s science fiction.
What happened next? They became one of Hollywood's coolest couples and had two children, Maya, now a successful actress in her own right, and Levon.
And then? They announced their separation in 2003 amid persistent rumors that Hawke had been unfaithful with the family's nanny. The actor denied those claims and later described the episode as “humiliating.”
What series brought them together? The psychological thriller 'Gypsy,' which failed to earn a second season renewal from Netflix.
What happened next? The marriage they portrayed on screen eventually became a reality off screen. In 2023, they made their relationship official with an intimate civil wedding in New York, and a year later they said “I do” again in Mexico.
And then? Together they have raised the two children from Watts's previous relationship with actor Liev Schreiber. Their younger child, Kai, 17, took her first steps as a model this autumn, appearing alongside her mother in a campaign for the fashion label Simkhai.
What film brought them together? 'Sweet Girl' (2021), in which they played a married couple.
What happened next? Their relationship appears to have begun during or after filming, although at the time Momoa was coming to the end of his relationship with Lisa Bonet, with whom he had spent nearly 17 years and shares two children.
And then? The split was not made public until 2022, and their divorce was finalized in 2024. That same year, Momoa confirmed his relationship with Arjona.
What film brought them together? 'Changeland,' a low-budget comedy.
What happened next? The former child star and the Disney Channel actress traveled to Thailand to do the film's director a favor, only to stay for weeks as their romance began to blossom.
And then? They are now parents of two sons and have become one of Hollywood's most unexpectedly enduring, beloved and closely watched couples.
What film brought them together? 'The Amazing Spider-Man' (2012). Like the characters they played on screen, Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, they fell in love.
What happened next? They were together for four years and went on to star in a second Spider-Man film before eventually going their separate ways. Today, Stone has a daughter with director Dave McCary, while Garfield is in a relationship with actress Monica Barbaro.
What film brought them together? 'The Last Song' (2010), a teen romance that marked Cyrus's bid to move beyond her Hannah Montana image.
What happened next? What followed was a decade-long on-again, off-again relationship, marked by breakups and reconciliations. They eventually married, just days after losing their home in a wildfire.
And then? The marriage did not last. Amid speculation about infidelity and other strains on the relationship, the couple divorced. Cyrus later released the global hit 'Flowers,' a song widely interpreted as containing references to Hemsworth, and one that earned her the first Grammy Award of her career.
What series brought them together? 'Stranger Things,' in which they play Nancy Wheeler and Jonathan Byers, two teenagers who fall in love while trying to protect their younger siblings from the forces of evil.
What happened next? They met while filming the first season, when their characters were not yet a couple, and rumors of a romance began circulating the following year.
And then? They made their relationship red-carpet official in 2017. Nearly a decade later, reports of a possible split have surfaced in several media outlets, though neither actor has confirmed them.
Telecinco sigue moviendo ficha en sus mañanas con dos incorporaciones de peso. Cristóbal Soria se suma a 'Vamos a ver' como nuevo colaborador, mientras Álvaro Nieto cambia 'Espejo Público' por 'El programa de Ana Rosa' para reforzar la mesa política de Ana Rosa Quintana.
La Policía Nacional ha detenido a un hombre tras presuntamente matar a otro de un puñetazo en Sevilla. Los hechos ocurrieron a finales del pasado agosto en la zona arbolada ubicada entre la avenida Ronda del Tamarguillo y la calle Esteban Márquez, donde el arrestado agresió supuestamente a la víctima, según han informado este miércoles desde el Cuerpo. A consecuencia del impacto, el otro varón cayó de espaldas y "se golpeó bruscamente la cabeza contra el suelo".
Concha Galán ha recuperado casi tres décadas después uno de los episodios más duros de su carrera. La presentadora ha contado en 'Y ahora Sonsoles' que fue apartada de la televisión cuando estaba embarazada de seis meses, pese a continuar trabajando con normalidad y sin que la gestación fuera todavía especialmente visible. "A mí me echaron de televisión por estar embarazada", resumió ante Sonsoles Ónega.
A un mundo todavía de los registros de su compañero de vestuario, Marcelinho Huertas (732), y algo lejos aún del corte que le convertiría en jugador histórico de la competición (600 encuentros), pero Jaime Fernández se hace un hueco cada vez más grande en la Liga ACB. Con la que arranca este domingo 27 el madrileño abordará su decimoséptima campaña en la élite nacional. Las cinco más recientes defendiendo los colores de La Laguna Tenerife. Tras debutar con el Estudiantes el 17 de octubre de 2010, y tras siete años de colegial, pasó por el Andorra y tuvo otra etapa larga (cuatro cursos) en el Unicaja. Hasta la fecha acumula 458 encuentros.
El Ministerio de Defensa afronta 2026 con un nuevo salto en el gasto destinado a los Programas Especiales de Modernización (PEM). Los compromisos presupuestarios consignados para este ejercicio ascienden a 6.835 millones de euros y, si la ejecución final alcanzara esa cifra, supondrían un aumento del 21,8% respecto a los 5.610 millones invertidos en 2025 a través de 14 proyectos.
Sandra Golpe ha abierto este martes 'Antena 3 Noticias 1' llevando hasta los titulares el duelo televisivo que la noche anterior se había producido dentro del propio grupo Atresmedia. La periodista ha sido tajante al resumir el resultado: "Pedro Sánchez compitió anoche y perdió en el prime time frente al presidente de Ceuta", antes de destacar las declaraciones realizadas por Juan Jesús Vivas en 'El Hormiguero'.
En marzo de este año, la desarrolladora y editora surcoreana Pearl Abyss, publicó ‘Crimson Desert’. Se trata de un juego de acción y aventura en mundo abierto que ha gozado de un éxito brutal e inesperado vendiendo más de 6 millones de copias. Recientemente, incluso se ha revelado que ha sido uno de los juegos más vendidos en Steam este año.
Alma Bollo ha visto truncada su segunda aventura en 'Supervivientes' apenas unos días después de aterrizar en Honduras. El equipo médico de 'Supervivientes All Stars 3' ha determinado que no puede continuar concursando por una lesión que, pese a estar respondiendo favorablemente al tratamiento, desaconseja su permanencia en las condiciones extremas del reality.
Login
