R.I.P. Françoise Gilot

I Bought a Notebook Today

Better Call Someone [Anyone]

R.I.P. Chandler O’Leary

Putting Words in Their Mouths

"An unforgettable talent": The cast and crew of "The Wire" reflect on the legacy of Lance Reddick

The Silicon Valley Bank Catastrophe

Persia on the Periphery: Iran, Imagined

"Last of Us" creators on the finale, a game "genetic connection" and what they won't do in Season 2

Making sense of The Last of Us‘s thrilling, affecting season finale

Enlarge / The view is pretty great... (credit: HBO)

New episodes of The Last of Us are premiering on HBO every Sunday night, and Ars' Kyle Orland (who's played the games) and Andrew Cunningham (who hasn't) will be talking about them here every Sunday evening. While these recaps don't delve into every single plot point of the episode, there are obviously heavy spoilers contained within, so go watch the episode first if you want to go in fresh.

Kyle: We made it to the last of The Last of Us season one! Which means I get to ask you the first question I asked myself after playing the first game; the one I've been waiting weeks to ask you; and probably the most important and lingering question of the whole season:

Does Ellie believe Joel?

Andrew: OK, I definitely came away from this with an entirely different lingering question! But like many episodes of The Last of Us, maybe we should cut away from the action so that we can jump back in time and then work our way back up to those questions?

In this episode, Joel and Ellie make it! They're in Reno, and they find the doctors they've been trying to find this whole time. They just need to let the doctors run a few tests, and then they can ride off into the sunset together, their surrogate father/daughter bond intact and healthy and totally great. Right?

Kyle: There are plenty of other questions, to be sure, but I wanted to start with the one that lingers most after that gripping final shot.

But yes, backing up a bit, I like how this episode gets back to some quiet time between Joel and Ellie, who get to joke around and feed giraffes and be generally wistful about their journey together. They have obviously and fully become a surrogate father/daughter pair to each other, which is saying something, given how reluctant they were to even be in the same space back at the beginning of the series.

Andrew: There are nice moments. But now that Joel is fully open to letting Ellie occupy the role of his dead daughter, there's a sort of manic, almost desperate note to his relationship with her at the episode's outset. Joel's stolid, monosyllabic veneer is gone, and now that it is, he's talking too much; he's suddenly too eager to connect.

Kyle: You could also argue he's suddenly too eager to protect his surrogate daughter at the expense of humanity...

What did you do, Joel, and why did you do it? (credit: HBO)

Andrew: Yes! Yes. That's the thing.

Unlike just about every other group of people we've run into in The Last of Us universe, there doesn't seem to be anything especially sinister about the Reno Fireflies. Yes, they decide pretty quickly that the only way to study and transmit Ellie's immunity is to remove her brain (This is explained somewhat in yet another episode-opening flashback where we meet Ellie's mother and do in fact learn the incredible true story of how Ellie got her knife, a joke I made a few recaps ago that ended up coming true).

But they are not, as far as we know, a community of sadistic evangelical vigilante brain-removers. They are, to borrow a phrase, putting the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few. And it's not that I don't feel deeply for Joel, who is clearly not ready or willing or able to lose another daughter. But his response to the situation...

It leads me to my question: is Joel the bad guy? Have we, the audience, been hoodwinked by Pedro Pascal's dadly charms into rooting for a monster?

Kyle: To me, this is not, in the end, a very interesting or difficult question. Any objective look at the situation would conclude that Joel obviously made the wrong choice here. Saving humanity from cordyceps is strikingly more valuable than protecting Ellie's life.

The only way to come to the opposite conclusion is by being hopelessly sentimental about the whole thing. And Joel's actions are made even worse because, as Marlene points out, Ellie would pretty clearly be willing to sacrifice herself for that greater good.

That said, I think both the game and the show do a good job of threading the needle between not defending Joel's actions but still explaining them. By the time we get to these final scenes, we understand how and why a very broken Joel would essentially sacrifice the human race for this girl he met relatively recently. You don't have to agree with it to understand it from Joel's point of view, and I think that's an amazing narrative feat.

What wouldn't you do to protect this face? (credit: HBO)

Andrew: Yeah, it’s telling that the biggest problem I have with what happens gets back to your question. It’s objectively not great that Joel goes on a rampage at the expense of what could be a society-salvaging vaccine, and objectively not great that he kills not just armed Fireflies but unarmed civilians.

But getting back to your initial question, I think the most monstrous, selfish thing he does is lie about it to a girl who has huge trust issues and who relies on him for everything. Maybe you can understand why Joel is doing what he’s doing, but it’s an unfathomable betrayal of this person who he claims to care about.

Kyle: Joel knows what he did is unforgivable and that Ellie would never forgive him if he told her the truth at that moment. And yes, that alone makes him pretty irredeemable in my eyes (though there are plenty of sentimental people out there who think Joel did the right thing).

But then there's those last few seconds of the season—that tight close-up on Ellie's face—where you can almost see the gears turning in her head. Does she just trust Joel so much that she just puts any doubts aside? Is she convincing herself to believe Joel for the sake of her own sanity? Or does she know Joel is lying and is just pretending to accept his story to protect their relationship?

Andrew: Whether she believes him or just buys into the lie to protect their relationship will have big implications for next season because it's hard to imagine this not catching up with them. If that is the question the show is wrestling with, I think that's a whole lot more interesting than saying, "Well, Joel did what he did for understandable reasons, so ultimately it's OK that he did it."

I was thinking about how this game came out in 2013 and how a decade ago we were still very much in the middle of an anti-hero era in movies and TV. I'm mostly thinking of The Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and their many imitators. These shows asked viewers to explore the psyches of (mostly) white (mostly) men who were doing bad things, but who could still elicit sympathy and understanding because of some combination of good writing and great, charismatic performances.

The problem was that sometimes those shows were too good at what they were doing, and at least some viewers went from understanding and sympathizing with those characters to rooting for them in ways that could be uncomfortable. Walter White was ultimately a manipulative drug kingpin, a murderer and a serial liar, a megalomaniac addicted to power and its exercise. A non-trivial portion of the show's fanbase spent most of the series upset at his wife for being "an annoying bitch" who was insufficiently supportive of his criminal enterprise.

I really liked what The Last of Us finale accomplished insofar as it subverted my expectations. I went in ready for a mostly heartwarming tale of found family in an apocalyptic setting, and the season does deliver that. But this episode's haunted, desperate Joel, too eager to project his dead daughter onto Ellie and too willing to go on a killing spree in the interest of "protecting" her, adds an uncomfortable layer on top of their dynamic.

How I feel about season two will depend on whether the show wants to acknowledge and explore that discomfort or whether it wants us to think that Joel is a flawed badass who was "right" to do what he did just because he did it for sympathetic reasons.

So that's my season-ending mini-essay. As a game player who has some idea of what's coming next, how did the finale leave you? How are you feeling about this season as a game adaptation?

Mother, victim, knife donor... (credit: HBO)

Kyle: I don't want to spoil too much about Part 2 (and presumably season two of the show) by talking about where this plot thread goes. I will say that I thought the ambiguity of the ending in the first game/season was so well done that I felt continuing Joel and Ellie's story could only lessen it, which I think is what ended up happening.

Part 2 aside, I feel like Part 1 has one of the best-presented endings in gaming, which carries over quite well here. These final scenes paper over a lot of the narrative's weaker moments. And that close-up on Ellie's face—with all the vagaries in every slight twitch of her eyes and chin—was even more impressive in a 2013 game, where motion-captured performances tended to be much broader and more over-the-top.

The show finale includes almost shot-for-shot remakes of many of the key scenes at the end of the game, right down to the music cues in many instances. But there is one subtle but important narrative change I noticed, which goes all the way back to the first episode.

Remember when that '60s talk show panelist suggested that a fungal outbreak wouldn't just be society-destroying but that a cure wouldn't even be possible?

In the game, while it's not 100 percent clear that the doctors will succeed in turning Ellie's brain into a vaccine, there's nothing explicitly suggesting it's a foolish effort. In the show, that one line at the very beginning of the first episode kind of changes the entire calculus.

If that panelist was right, then maybe Joel was (accidentally) right to save Ellie? Was that line an effort to soften Joel's decision in the end and make his actions more forgivable?

Andrew: Well, there’s “not possible,” and “we don’t believe it to be possible.” Ellie’s immunity in the first place is “impossible,” if anything I think that “impossible” line is meant to make Ellie’s immunity feel more extraordinary.

This is one of the things about this season that feels too rushed. We know that “smearing Ellie’s blood on an open wound” doesn’t fix anything, but that’s also not how medicine works unless you’re a kid who doesn’t know anything about medicine. So the show’s immediate jump to “the only way to get a cure is by harvesting Ellie’s brain!” feels a bit fast, even by the standards of post-apocalypse frontier medicine.

Regardless, I’m not sure the talk show does much to redeem Joel because it seems pretty unlikely that he would be thinking of one throwaway line from one talk show that would’ve aired when he was a kid. And if we’re going off that line, are we supposed to be shouting, “This whole mission is stupid! A cure is impossible!” at our screens this whole time?

Sitting and waiting for season two... (credit: HBO)

Kyle: Knowing where the season was going to end up, yeah, I was kind of wondering about that one line and internally screaming about it for the entire season.

I'm not trying to suggest Joel had arcane medical knowledge driving his decision. But in the context of a TV show, it's hard to see why the creators would throw in a line like that for any reason other than adding a bit of "maybe Ellie's death would have been in vain"-type doubt nine episodes later...

Andrew: All we know is that they made it to the Firefly doctors, and they decided within a couple of hours that they needed to scoop her brain out. I’m just saying that if the show is going to try to make us feel better about what Joel did, it needed to/will need to do a bit more lifting on the “well, the cure is impossible anyway, so it’s fine” front.

My last question for you: as a video game adaptation, do you think The Last of Us is better or worse than the current best video game adaptation, Super Mario Bros. (1993)?

Kyle: The SMB movie had the better use of fungus, perhaps...

Joking aside, this adaptation made me think a lot of the 2009 Watchmen movie, which I think suffered from being way too faithful to the source material. Here we had just the right amount of faithfulness with (mostly) useful additions/changes for the new medium.

The source material provided a good starting point, but if they had just ended with that starting point, I think the conversion wouldn't have worked nearly as well.

Andrew: That’s a useful comparison point for any adaptation. “How faithful is this to the source material, on a scale from the Watchmen movie to the Watchmen HBO miniseries?”

I’m looking forward to season two, but I need to fire up a change dot org petition to get us back to 13 episode seasons, please and thanks.

Kyle: The latest reports suggest they're looking to adapt the second game into more than one season, which ought to help the pacing a bit.

Andrew: Huh, OK. That might be too far in the other direction, but we’ll see...

And that, I think, is “the last of us” talking about this season!! Ha ha ha!

Kyle: Ha ha ha ha! (freeze frame on Kyle and Andrew laughing and slapping backs. Roll credits)

Read on Ars Technica | Comments

Amazon just saved Batman: Caped Crusader after HBO Max cut it loose

Even with all of the endless adaptations of comic book superheroes, there isn't a single character that can measure up to Batman's success in film and television. Since the late 80s, Batman films have remained at the pinnacle of superhero cinema, thanks to Tim Burton's timely take on the Caped Crusader. — Read the rest

Life Imitates the Oscars

"The Last of Us" makes an unholy meal of starving childhood innocence, served by a bloody preacher

HBO’s The Last of Us episode 8 ruins one of the game’s best villains

Enlarge / He looks nice... (credit: HBO)

New episodes of The Last of Us are premiering on HBO every Sunday night, and Ars' Kyle Orland (who's played the games) and Andrew Cunningham (who hasn't) will be talking about them here every Monday morning. While these recaps don't delve into every single plot point of the episode, there are obviously heavy spoilers contained within, so go watch the episode first if you want to go in fresh.

Kyle: Up until now, for the most part, I think the Last of Us TV show has done a good job fleshing out the game's story without really ruining the key moments. That didn't really happen with this episode.

In the games, we get a quick cut from the events of episode 6 to Ellie hunting wild game in the snow. As we take direct control of Ellie for the first time, we don't even know if the unseen Joel is alive or dead.

We also don't know anything about the mild-mannered stranger named David that Ellie stumbles upon while hunting. He even seems like a plausible Joel replacement at points during the early, amenable parts of their in-game team-up.

Seeing everything from Ellie's perspective really heightens the tension and mystery of David's whole arc, and I feel like the show kind of ruined that pacing here.

Andrew: Even with no knowledge of how this plays out in the game, I agree that this episode felt super rushed and uneven in a way that makes me more frustrated about last week’s flashback episode. Not that last week’s episode was bad at all! But this arc clearly wanted another episode to breathe, like the Kansas City arc got. Instead we have to cram all this stuff into a single hour.

David suffers the most. It’s like the show needed to stuff him full of red flags to make sure that viewers really didn’t like him or feel bad for him, but it also makes him into a cartoon character in a show where most of the antagonists have already been a little flat.

We are in need of a more interesting characterization... (credit: HBO)

Kyle: The whole preacher subplot is completely new to the show, as far as I can tell, as is David's baffling vision of a violent teenager as a partner in leading the flock. I can see why they wanted to give his turn to cannibalism some grounding, but yeah, it's another situation where the red flags are a little too overt.

Andrew: Yeah, in a TV show, there are some places where I am more willing and able to suspend disbelief—like when Joel goes from laid-out-on-his-back-delirious-with-infection to full-on Rambo-killing-spree in the space of 45 minutes. A more realistic recovery would take a long time to show and to watch! Bo-ring!

But I did not believe for even one fraction of one second that Ellie was in any danger of joining up with this creepy fundamentalist/mushroom cultist/child-hitter/cannibal guy, and it makes it weirder that the last sequence between them is framed as this big emotional showdown.

And also... this community had a lot of other people in it? Where did they go? A more organic and satisfying version might have had David’s own community seeing what a creep he is and turning on him, rather than a big dramatic one-on-one confrontation between David and Ellie in the world’s most flammable restaurant. It doesn’t sound like that’s how it goes in the games, but it also sounds like the character is just handled fundamentally differently.

Just hanging out... (credit: HBO)

Kyle: Not getting any resolution to what happens to this community of people that have now had their cult leader violently killed does seem like a pretty big dangling plot thread.

Here's my main question for someone going in fresh: Did you ever feel like David was potentially just a nice guy and someone that Ellie could justifiably trust and/or let down her guard in front of? I feel like the game went to great pains to push the player in that direction for a while before the heel turn, and it just didn't work for me here. Then again, I knew some of David's dark secrets from the get-go...

Andrew: I don’t think the audience is meant to believe that David could be a good guy at any point. The scene where you meet him is too full of meaningful looks and ominous pauses, and obvious fear on the part of the other people in the community.

The first scene where David and Ellie meet, on the other hand—I could see it! David (played by Scott Shepherd, a fairly prolific character actor who has one of those “what have I seen him in?” faces) has a certain reassuring avuncular charisma to him. Unfortunately, we’ve already seen too many Bad Guy markers from him, even before you find out that he’s been reading To Serve Man.

That gun looks a bit heavy, Ellie... (credit: HBO)

Kyle: Where this episode does follow the games pretty closely is in leaning more toward the "torture porn" side of the equation than any part of the story so far. Not that there hasn't been plenty of violence previously, but seeing Joel torture and kill two prisoners without any remorse and Ellie's own almost-chopping-and-revenge really takes it to a new level. It also makes you look at both characters in a disturbing new light, I think.

Andrew: Joel is clearly being driven both by his dawning acceptance of Ellie-as-daughter figure (his “baby girl” when they finally meet back up is extremely loaded) and his established trust-no-one views of life post-apocalypse. But that doesn’t make it any less uncomfortable to watch. This is a dated reference, but I was reminded of Kiefer Sutherland’s Jack Bauer, from the War On Terror-era show 24. Sure, he tortures people, and sure, he seems just a hair too enthusiastic about it, but he gets results!!

And you’re right that Ellie’s butchering of David at the end of the episode goes on just a bit too long for comfort. I’m just not sure what to make of it. Surely Ellie has been traumatized as much as she could possibly need to be for story purposes. It’s not as though David was close enough to her to really betray her. Between the two of them, Joel and Ellie do enough violence this episode to sour their tearful reunion a bit. Which is not really where I wanted to be heading into the season finale of a show I have otherwise mostly liked.

Kyle: There's definitely a certain "War on Terror" mindset that creeps into the narrative from decades past, for sure.

Who doesn't love a good stealth section? (credit: HBO)

Andrew: That was where society ended, something the show occasionally references but doesn’t pick at too much. We’ve had one 9/11 reference and one Pearl Jam album with a lot of anti-Bush stuff on it, so presumably the US had invaded Iraq six months before society fell apart.

Kyle: Now I'm wondering if Osama bin Laden's cave hideout was relatively safe from the Infected. Depends how much cordyceps-infused flour they imported, I guess?

Andrew: It does kind of make me want to see more about how the world outside the US is handling the apocalypse. Maybe we would have, back in the old days of 22-episode seasons.

Kyle: Which gets into what I think has become a pretty big pacing problem with the show. In the games, new characters would pop in and stick around for a while, and you never knew precisely when they would pop out again (usually with a violent death). Here, the structure means the pattern of "here's a new character, they will be dead by the end of this episode (or maybe the next one)" has become way too obvious...

All that death has been building toward the big finale, though. Without getting too spoilery, I wonder if you even remember what Joel and Ellie are trekking for/toward at this point, and if you have any big predictions for the final episode?

Oh yeah, Troy Baker is here, too. (credit: HBO)

Andrew: They still have to get her magic blood out to some Firefly-affiliated scientists! The only thing I’m confident enough to assert is that they’re finally going to get where they’re going, and the scientists are going to end up being weirdo creeps who aren’t totally on the level.

I would love to be pleasantly surprised! Maybe the show has settled into this predictable rhythm to make it especially mind-blowing next week when all the scientists end up being super chill and professional.

Kyle: Not to set your expectations too high, but the conclusion of The Last of Us Part One is what raises it to the level of "All Time Great" game for me, so I'm looking forward to seeing this team of actors and producers tackle it.

Andrew: It’s too late, you’ve set my expectations too high! If I don’t like the finale, it’ll be all your fault.

Read on Ars Technica | Comments

Fox News Protects Itself

Sketchbook Review: BUKE A5 Size Hardcover Sketchbook Journal – 180Gsm Ultra Bamboo Paper

The BUKE A5 Size Hardcover Sketchbook Journal (currently selling for $13.34) is kind of an amazing little sketchbook. First, the price! I think when I ordered it, it was about $15.50 which is still incredibly inexpensive.

The sketchbook came in a matte, white box with an iridescent foil feather on the box. Inside, the sketchbook was wrapped in a waxed paper and included a bookmark and some stickers. This is a very deluxe package for a sketchbook that sells for less than $20.

The sketchbook includes 160 bright white pages between two matte PU covers with an iridescent foil feather quill on the cover. The sketchbook includes lots of the popular attribute like three ribbon bookmarks, a gusseted pocket in the back cover for loose ephemera and a vertical elastic to keep the book closed.

The paper is 180gsm “Ultra Bamboo Paper” — THIS is the main reason I ordered it in the first place. Bamboo is the key ingredient in Tomoe River Paper but its very thin. So the idea of THICK bamboo paper was very appealing.

Just for reference, the Col-o-ring Ink Testing Book is only 160gsm paper so the paper in the Bamboo Sketchbook really is THICK. If you like mixed media, craft, collage and using a wide array of creative materials, this is a great sketchbook option.

I started my pen testing with brush pens, markers, colored pencils and other art supplies. I drizzled fountain pen ink and even tried some watercolors. The paper is very smooth and reminds me of Bristol Board from art school in terms of weight and smoothness, but its all bound into a handy A5 notebook.

When I flipped the pages over to see if there was any show through or bleed through.

The only time there were issues with bleed through was with the alcohol-based Copic markers and a couple places with drizzled fountain pen ink on the page.

All fountain pens in writing tests performed beautifully. The ink did not spread at all in the tests —  so a fine nib stays fine and so forth. Some papers can causes ink to spread and appear wider but this 180gsm bamboo paper kept all nibs true to size.

The fountain pen inks I tried included several sheening inks and all the sheen showed beautifully.

The only downside I discovered with this notebook is that the matte covers pick up dust and fingerprints very easily.

This is probably one of the best value sketchbooks currently on the market. If you are looking for a sketchbook or notebook that can handle a wide range of writing tools and materials, then this will be a book you’ll love.

Get creative and play with this great little value-priced bamboo sketchbook!

DISCLAIMER: The item in this review include affiliate links. The Well-Appointed Desk is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon. Please see the About page for more details.

The post Sketchbook Review: BUKE A5 Size Hardcover Sketchbook Journal – 180Gsm Ultra Bamboo Paper appeared first on The Well-Appointed Desk.

"What is desire?": "The Last of Us" director on the apocalyptic wonder of a trip to the mall

Biden Beset by Balloons

The best video streaming services in 2023

The number of video streaming services available has increased dramatically over the past few years as everyone, including Apple, Disney and ESPN, decides they want a piece of the pie. The days when Netflix was your only option are long gone now, and while that’s great for all of us itching to discover our next favorite TV show, finding the best streaming service can also be confusing and expensive. You’re now tasked with figuring out which services have the content you want to watch, which fit into your budget, which have the most compelling original series and movies, and more.

We at Engadget wanted to make that process easier for you so we’ve compiled a list of the best video streaming services you can subscribe to right now, with our favorite picks spanning across all content types and budgets. Now, should you go out and subscribe to all of the services listed here? Probably not, unless you’re a true cord cutter aching for content. But these are the services that offer the best bang for your buck, regardless of whether you’re a live sports buff, a classic movie lover or a general streaming enthusiast.

Netflix

Compared to other streaming services, no one offers more high-quality content at a single price than Netflix. Pick any category you can think of and Netflix probably has something that will fit the bill. Plus, new content is released every week and as a worldwide service, Netflix is consistently adding movies and TV shows from around the globe that can change the viewing experience in ways you may not have considered (Are you sure you’re not into K-Dramas, Finnish detective thrillers or British home improvement shows?).

Netflix is available in almost every country on the planet, and its app or website runs on most of the devices that connect to the internet. Those apps are also some of the most easy-to-use of any service. That doesn’t mean it’s always simple to choose something to watch, but when it comes to swapping profiles or simply picking up where you left off, it doesn’t get better than this. If you’re heading off the grid — or onto a plane — then you can easily download most (but not all) of its content to watch on your iOS or Android device.

If you somehow don’t have Netflix already (or someone to share a login with) then getting a taste of it is a little more complicated than it used to be. Netflix dropped its free trial period in the US a while ago so it’s important to have all your information in order before going in to create an account.

The other thing to keep in mind is that maybe if you’ve let your account lapse, the service that exists now is very different from what you would’ve seen two years ago, or five, or ten. Remaining the dominant player in subscription streaming has required adjustments to stay on top with a changing mix of content and plans to choose from.

In the US, there are four levels of Netflix you can subscribe to. All of them include unlimited access to the same content, work on the same devices and you can cancel or pause them at any time. The Basic with Ads tier costs $7 per month and it's the only option that includes advertisements. The difference between Basic ($10 per month), Standard ($15.50 per month) and Premium ($20 per month) comes down to picture quality and the amount of simultaneous streams allowed.

With both Basic tiers, you can expect 480p, aka DVD quality, and only a single stream available. If you’d like to watch streams in HD and allow for the possibility of up to two streams at once, then you’ll need to step up to the Standard package. If you share your account with multiple people or have a newer 4K display, then you may want the Premium package. You can watch content in the highest quality available going all the way up to 4K/HDR (F1 Drive to Survive, Stranger Things and Altered Carbon are some of my favorites at the level) and have four streams at once on one account.— Richard Lawler, Senior News Editor

Amazon Prime Video 

If you think of Amazon’s Prime Video package as a Netflix-lite, or even if you’ve only used it once or twice, then you may be underestimating the options available. The ad-free (other than trailers) subscription service is available as part of Amazon Prime, which you can purchase for either $15 per month, or $139 annually. While the subscription started out as a way to get free shipping on more purchases, Amazon has tacked on benefits that extend across books, music, games and even groceries. If you’d prefer to get Prime Video only, it’s available as a standalone for $9 per month.

We’ll focus on the video service, which includes a selection of original and catalog content that is a lot like what Netflix and the others offer. In recent years Amazon Prime has increased its original output with award-winning series like The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, as well as highly-regarded genre content like The Boys and The Expanse.

When it comes to where you can watch Amazon Prime Video, the list of options rivals Netflix. Streaming boxes and smart TVs, whether they’re part of Amazon’s Fire TV platform or not, are almost a given. Game consoles? Check. The only major gap in compatibility was Google’s Chromecast, and it closed that hole in the summer of 2019.

Amazon also has a significant amount of content that’s available to watch in 4K and HDR and unlike Netflix it won’t charge you extra for the privilege. The same goes for simultaneous streams — Amazon’s rules say you can have up to two running concurrently. When it comes to downloads, Amazon allows offline viewing on its Fire devices, Android and iOS.

The only downside is that Amazon’s apps aren’t quite on par with Netflix in terms of usability. While all the features are there, simple things like reading an episode summary, enabling closed-captions or jumping out of one show and into another are frequently more frustrating on Amazon than on other platforms. The company also frequently insists on bringing its Fire TV-style interface to other platforms instead of using their native controls. That can make it harder to use, although on platforms where it hews to the built-in controls, like Roku, can be easier to use.

One other thing to think about is that Amazon’s video apps link to its on-demand store, and include access to Channels. For cord-cutters who just want a consistent experience across different devices, that means you can easily buy or rent content that isn’t part of the subscription. Amazon Channels lets you manage subscriptions to Britbox, Showtime, Paramount+ and others. — R.L.

HBO Max

In 2020, HBO decided to take the fight to its streaming competitors with HBO Max. It supplanted the existing HBO channels, as well as streaming via HBO Go or HBO Now by refocusing on original content and rebuilding the service for the modern era. HBO Max has the advantage of linking to one of the deepest (and best) content libraries available, drawing from the premium cable channel’s archives, the Warner Bros. vault, Studio Ghibli, Looney Tunes, Sesame Street and Turner Classic Movies.

If you pay for HBO from one of the major TV providers, then congratulations — you probably already have access to the full HBO Max experience. Just activate your account and start streaming. Otherwise, you can subscribe directly over the internet. HBO Max has a free 7-day trial, and costs $15 per month (or $150 a year) for the no-ads tier.

The company just came out with an ad-supported tier, which costs $10 per month or $100 per year. Along with ads, you won't be able to download content for offline viewing. Currently, HBO Max only offers 4K HDR streaming for certain content, and only those with the ad-free plan can access it. It can support up to three streams simultaneously, and offers individual profiles.

Since launch, HBO Max has come to more TV platforms and it's now available on Roku, Apple TV, Android TV, Samsung and others. You can also stream it via a browser, Sony and Microsoft’s game consoles or with mobile apps on Android and iOS. It also includes support for AirPlay and Google’s Cast feature, which help it work with more smart TVs than just the ones listed here.

HBO Max content includes premium stuff that Warner yanked back from Netflix and others, like full series runs of Friends and The Fresh Prince, or DC Universe-related TV series and movies. The HBO library speaks for itself, with Game of Thrones, The Wire and older stuff like Band of Brothers, Flight of the Conchords or Entourage. It’s also investing in all-new content for HBO Max, like its Game of Thrones spin-off, House of the Dragon and a series based on the Last of Us video game.

We should mention, however, that HBO Max has recently canceled several shows ahead of the Discovery+ merger as a cost-cutting move. It is deprioritizing kid and family content, leading to the removal of Sesame Street spin-offs and a handful of Cartoon Network titles. Movies like Batgirl and Scoob!: Holiday Haunt has also been axed. Despite these changes, HBO Max still has one of the best content libraries of any TV streaming service and is worthy of consideration. — R.L. and Nicole Lee, Commerce Writer

Hulu

Hulu started out as a bit of a curiosity — a joint venture by NBC, News Corp and a private equity firm to compete with Netflix by offering new episodes of TV shows. Then, after Disney joined up in 2009, bringing along its content from ABC and the Disney Channel, Hulu became a streaming network worth paying attention to. Today, Hulu's focus is still on recent TV episodes, but it also has a strong library of original series and films (like The Handmaid's Tale and Only Murders in the Building), as well as an archive of older TV and movies that often puts Netflix to shame.

Now that Disney owns a majority controlling stake in Hulu, following its acquisition of 21st Century Fox, the service is less of a collaboration between media giants. (Comcast still offers NBCUniversal content, but it can choose to have Disney buy out its shares as early as 2024.) Instead, it's yet another feather in Disney's increasingly important digital empire, alongside Disney+ and ESPN+. That may not be a great thing for the competitiveness of streaming services in general, but for subscribers it means they can look forward to even more quality content, like all of the FX shows that hit Hulu earlier this year.

Hulu subscriptions start at $7 a month (or $70 a year) with ads. You can also bump up to the ad-free plan for $13 a month (worth it for true TV addicts). The company's Live TV offering is considerably more expensive, starting at $70 a month with ads and $76 a month ad-free, but you do get Disney+ and ESPN+ services bundled in. Hulu allows two of your devices to stream at the same time, and you can also download some content for offline viewing. Hulu Live TV subscribers can also pay $10 a month for unlimited streaming at home (and for up to three remote mobile devices).

Given that it's one of the longest-running streaming services out there, you can find Hulu apps everywhere, from TVs to set-top boxes. The company has been slow to adopt newer home theater technology, though — we're still waiting for surround sound on Apple TV and many other devices, and there's no HDR at all. — Devindra Hardawar, Senior Editor

Disney+

Disney+came out swinging, leveraging all of the company's popular brands, like Star Wars, Pixar and Marvel. It's your one-stop-shop for everything Disney, making it catnip for kids, parents, animation fans and anyone looking for some classic films from the likes of 20th Century Pictures. And unlike Hulu, which Disney also owns, there aren't any R-rated movies or shows that curious kiddos can come across.

Given the company's new focus on streaming, Disney+ has quickly become a must-have for families. And at $8 a month (or $80 a year), it's a lot cheaper than wrangling the kids for a night out at the movies (or even buying one of the Disney's over-priced Blu-rays). You can also get it bundled with ESPN+ and Hulu for $14 a month. Some Verizon FiOS and mobile customers can also get Disney+, Hulu and ESPN for free.

Disney+ supports four simultaneous streams at once, and also lets you download films and shows for offline viewing. (That's particularly helpful when you're stuck in the car with no cell service and a crying toddler. Trust me.) You can access Disney+ on every major streaming device and most TV brands. While the service launched without support for Amazon's Fire TV devices, it's now available there as well. — D.H.

Apple TV+

Apple spared no expense with its streaming platform, launching with high profile series like The Morning Show. While they weren’t all hits initially (See you later, get it?), Apple TV+ has since amassed a slew of must-watch programming like Ted Lasso, Severance, and For All Mankind. Clearly, the iPhone maker is taking a different approach than Netflix or Disney, with a focus on quality and big celebrity names, rather than bombarding us with a ton of content. But that strategy seems to have paid off.

For $7 a month, there’s a ton of great shows and movies to dive into. But if you’re a dedicated Apple user, it may be worth moving up to an Apple One plan, which also bundles Apple Arcade, Apple Music, and 50GB of iCloud storage for $15 a month. Step up to $20 monthly, and you can bring in your whole family with up to 200GB of iCloud storage. And for $30 a month, Apple throws in News+ and Fitness+. – D.H.

YouTube TV

YouTube TV is a great option for cord cutters who still want to watch live TV without having to sign up for a contract. It carries over 85 different channels, so it’s highly likely that you won’t miss your cable TV or satellite subscription at all if you switch over. YouTube TV even carries your regional PBS channels, which is a rarity on most live TV streaming services.

Where YouTube TV really shines is in the live sports department. Not only does it offer sports-carrying channels like CBS, FOX, ESPN, NBC, TBS and TNT, it also offers specific sports coverage networks like the MLB Network, NBA TV and the NFL Network. You can even opt for a Sports Plus package for an additional $11 a month if you want specific sports channels like NFL RedZone, FOX College Sports, GOLTV, FOX Soccer Plus, MAVTV Motorsports Network, TVG and Stadium. Unfortunately, however, YouTube TV recently lost the rights to carry Bally Sports regional networks, which means that you won’t get region-specific channels such as Bally Sports Detroit or Bally Sports Southwest.

One particularly strong selling point for sports fans is that instead of always remembering to record a particular game, you can just choose to “follow” a specific team and the DVR will automatically record all of its games. Plus, if you happen to have jumped into the match late, there’s a “catch up with key plays” feature that lets you watch all the highlights up until that point so that you’re up to speed.

YouTube TV is on the expensive side at $65 a month, which might not be much more than your basic cable package. If you want to add 4K viewing (which is currently only available through certain sporting events) plus unlimited streaming, you’d have to cough up an additional $20 a month.

It currently offers one of the best cloud DVRs available. YouTube TV’s DVR has unlimited storage plus you have up to nine months to watch your recorded content before they expire. There are also no DVR up-charges here; you can rewind or fast forward through the recorded content as you please by default. We should note, however, that the on-demand content on YouTube TV does have ads which you can’t fast-forward through.

There’s also a plethora of premium channels that you can add for as low as $3 per month, such as Showtime ($11 a month), HBO Max ($15 a month), Starz ($9 a month), Cinemax ($10 a month) and EPIX ($6 a month). You can also subscribe to an Entertainment Plus bundle that includes HBO Max, Showtime and Starz for $30 a month. Other niche add-ons include CuriosityStream ($3 a month), AMC Premiere ($5 a month), Shudder ($6 a month), Sundance Now ($7 a month), Urban Movie Channel ($5 a month), and Acorn TV ($6 a month). — N.L.

Hulu + Live TV

Aside from on-demand and original content, Hulu also offers a Live TV add-on that lets you stream over 80 channels without a cable or satellite subscription. It’ll cost $70 a month, but that includes access to both Disney+ and ESPN+. Pay about $6 more and you’ll also be able to watch on-demand shows without any ads, which can’t be said with YouTube TV. As of April 2022, Hulu’s Live TV option also has unlimited DVR for up to nine months. That includes on-demand playback and fast-forwarding capabilities.

Hulu allows two simultaneous streams per account, but you can pay $15 more if you want unlimited screens (and up to three remote mobile devices). If you want, you can also add premium add-ons to your Hulu plan, such as HBO Max, Cinemax, Showtime, or Starz.

Hulu’s Live TV streaming service is a great option for sports fans, as it has access to channels like CBS, FOX, ESPN, NBC, TBS, TNT and more, all of which should deliver content for fans of most major sports like football, basketball and baseball. However, Hulu plus Live TV does not carry the NBA TV or the MLB Network, so you could miss out on additional sports coverage. — N.L.

ESPN+

Without a doubt, ESPN’s standalone service is the best deal in sports streaming. No one can compete with the network when it comes to the sheer volume of content. The platform hosts thousands of live college sporting events, plus MLB, MLS, NHL, NBA G League games and more. There’s plenty of pro tennis as well, and ESPN+ is an insane value for soccer fans.

On top of select MLS matches, ESPN+ is the US home of the Bundesliga (Germany) and the EFL cup (Carabao Cup). It’s also the spot for the UEFA Nations League international competition in Europe.

ESPN offers a slate of original shows and the full catalog of its 30 For 30 series on the service. And lastly, ESPN+ is the home of UFC. Fight Nights, Dana White’s Contender Series and other shows stream weekly or monthly, plus the app is how you access PPV events.

That’s a truckload of sports for $10 a month. If you splurge for the Disney bundle with Disney+ and Hulu (ad-supported), you can get all three for $14 per month. — Billy Steele, Senior News Editor

Paramount+

Formerly CBS All Access, Paramount+ may get the most attention for originals like Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard and The Twilight Zone, but it’s becoming a sports destination as well. The app began streaming NWSL soccer matches last summer when the league returned to the pitch. CBS also announced that All Access would be the live streaming home of the US women’s league. Unfortunately, you can’t watch every match there, but it’s a start.

Soon after, CBS added UEFA Champions League and Europa League soccer to its sports slate. The Champions League is the biggest competition in club soccer, pitting teams from various countries around the continent against each other to see who’s the best. Europa League does the same, but with less glory. Paramount+ is now the home of Series A soccer (Italy) and will broadcast CONCACAF World Cup qualifiers, which the US Men’s National Team will participate in.

At $5 a month with limited commercials, or $10 a month ad-free, Paramount+ isn’t a must have sports destination just yet. You can stream NFL and other games that air on your local CBS station inside the app, but the network is still filling out a well-rounded slate. For now, it’s more of a necessity for soccer fans than anything else. — B.S.

NBC Peacock

NBC made it clear before Peacock’s debut that Premier League soccer would be available on the standalone service. What we didn’t expect was that the network would put so many games there, basically forcing anyone who’s more than a casual fan to subscribe. This is partially due to PL scheduling. In the US, that means you need the $5/month service and access to NBC Sports network (through cable TV or live TV streaming) to follow comprehensively.

NBCUniversal had a similar structure in the past where one game per time slot was broadcast on NBC Sports and NBC Sports Gold was used as the overflow. Gold was also the home to cycling, Olympic sports and more. Now the Premier League is being used to push the new service Peacock, and with the current scheduling format, even more games are relegated to streaming only. Thankfully, Peacock does offer match replays, so there’s some added value there if you can’t be parked in front of your TV all day on Saturday and Sunday. Games currently run from about 7:30AM ET to around 5PM ET (matches usually at 7:30AM, 10AM, 12:30PM and one around 2:30 or 3:00PM).

Peacock also shows coverage of US Open tennis, NFL Wild Card games and will host “select events” from upcoming Olympics in Tokyo and Beijing. There’s also a smattering of sports talk shows available for free with paid users getting on-demand replays of Triple Crown horse racing and more. — B.S.

The Criterion Channel

While it's easy to find modern films on Netflix and other streaming services these days, classic cinema is often tougher to find. FilmStruck tried to solve that problem, but it couldn't find a large enough audience to survive. Now there's the Criterion Channel, which delivers a rotating array of its cinephile-approved library for $11 a month or $100 a year. (Where else can you stream something like the incredible ramen noodle Western Tampopo?)

It's a service that's built for movie lovers: It's chock full of commentary tracks, conversations with writers and directors, and some of the company's renowned special features. The Criterion Channel also does a far better job at curating viewing options than other services. Its double features, for instance, pair together thematically similar films, like the classic noir entries Phantom Lady and Variety. What’s more, its editors make it easy to find all of the available films from a single director, for all of you auteur theory connoisseurs.

Sure, it costs a bit more than Hulu and Disney+, but The Criterion Channel gives you access to a library that's far more rewarding than the latest streaming TV show. You can watch on up to three devices at once, and there's also offline viewing available for iOS and Android devices. It also supports major streaming devices from Apple, Amazon and Roku, but as far as TV's go, it's only on Samsung's Tizen-powered sets. Unfortunately, The Criterion Channel is only available in the US and Canada, due to licensing restrictions. — D.H.

Shudder

Sometimes, a good horror movie is the only way to deal with the constant anxiety of a potential climate apocalypse and the seeming downfall of modern society. If that describes your personality, it's worth taking a look at Shudder, AMC Network's streaming service dedicated to everything spooky. You'll find plenty of horror classics, like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but Shudder has also gotten into the original content game with unique films like Host, which takes place entirely over a Zoom call.

If you're a bit squeamish, Shudder probably won't sell you much on horror. But for fans of the genre, it's a smorgasbord of content to dive into. You can try it out free for seven days, and afterwards it's $6 per month (or $57 annually). Shudder only supports viewing one stream at a time, and there's no support for offline viewing yet. You can find Shudder on major streaming device platforms, but since it's so niche, don't expect to find it on smart TVs anytime soon. — D.H.

Caucasian woman lying down on sofa in living room at home searching for film or TV series to watch for leisure on her tablet.

"The Last of Us" book club: Puns at the end of the world