A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
MapQuest will not go gentle into that good night.
The navigation software — which debuted in 1996 and was later eclipsed by competitor Google Maps — is currying favor with new users by taking a hard line against Flock cameras.
Users can now track nearby Flock cameras and other surveillance systems using the platform's new Surveillance Layer, released yesterday to its mobile app. The layer includes location data for automatic license plate readers (APLRs) and other public cameras from almost a dozen companies: Flock, Motorola Solutions (Vigilant), Genetec, Axis Communications, Axon, Leonardo (ELSAG), Neology, Rekor, PlateSmart, Ubicquia, and Verkada.
According to MapQuest's terms, the data is sourced from Open Street Map contributors. Open Street Map is an open source, community-created mapping database.
Crowdsourced Flock maps have risen in popularity over the last year as communities fight back against the "public security" company. A nationwide backlash to ALPRs has resulted in intense scrutiny on Flock, including a recent Senate inquiry. Flock's CEO has doubled down on the company's partnerships with law enforcement and city governments, recently stating that only a small number of bad actors have abused its technology.
MapQuest shows nearby license plate readers as well as general surveillance cameras.Credit: MapQuest
Credit: MapQuest
Flock partners have faced multiple accusations of misusing the surveillance system to stalk, harass, and profile individuals.
MapQuest saw an influx of new users in September, after the website announced it wouldn't honor President Donald Trump's executive order to rename Lake Ontario to "Lake America." Last year, the platform also debuted a customizable map feature that let users rename the Gulf of Mexico, following the Trump administration's announcement it was changing the geographical area's name to "Gulf of America."
The Roads Have Eyes! 👁️
Turn on the Surveillance Layer in Map Options to see known license plate readers from Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions (Vigilant), Genetec, Axis Communications, Axon, Leonardo (ELSAG), Neology, Rekor, PlateSmart, Ubicquia, Verkada, and other outdoor surveillance cameras.
A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
SAVE $85: As of Oct. 16, the Yeti Roadie 48 Wheeled Cooler is on sale for $340 on Amazon in the color "venom." That's 20% off its usual sticker price of $425, which is its biggest discount ever.
Late-season clearance sales and early holiday discounts are the perfect recipe for some excellent outdoor deals this time of year. Case in point: Right now, Amazon has the Yeti Roadie 48 Wheeled Cooler on sale for a record-low price of $340, shaving $85 off its MSRP.
The Roadie 48 can hold up to 76 cans (without ice) or 54 pounds of ice (without cans) and is tall enough to fit most wine bottles and two-liter soda bottles, making it ideal for bustling tailgates and watch parties. It has a retractable handle and puncture-resistant wheels, so you can take it just about anywhere. Amazon reviewers have rated it very highly for its cooling performance and mobility.
Credit: Yeti
Note that Amazon's deal only applies to the lime green "venom" colorway, which is a win for Seattle Seahawks fans (or angels who are still bumping Charli xcx's 2024 album, brat). The other colors are still stuck at full price at Amazon and other retailers, including the Yeti website.
A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
Job interviews are already awkward enough when there's another human being on the other side of the conversation. Now, companies are increasingly turning to AI recruiters, and job seekers aren't exactly embracing their new robot interviewers.
Some are walking away. Others are deliberately confusing the bots with nonsense answers. And a few have decided that if employers can automate their side of an interview, there's no reason they can't do the same.
That's exactly what comedian and YouTuber Graham Dot Zip did, and the results offer a pretty good glimpse of how ridiculous hiring can get when neither side is human.
On Oct. 13, Graham created an AI representative named Victor to attend an interview with an AI recruiter. The arrangement quickly became a lesson in why you probably shouldn't let a chatbot negotiate your salary. The video (as of Oct. 15) has over 2.5 million views.
Victor began embellishing Graham's qualifications and suggested he'd accept around $60,000, despite Graham wanting somewhere between $140,000 and $150,000. The AI recruiter, meanwhile, wouldn't go above $90,000. Then Graham stepped away, leaving the two bots to continue their conversation. Without him, they arranged another interview and eventually got stuck exchanging professional pleasantries.
It's funny, especially if you've ever sat through an interview that could have been an email. But there's also something revealing about watching two chatbots negotiate a job neither of them will ever have. Neither side is learning much about the person or company they're supposedly representing, yet the hiring process somehow keeps moving along.
Graham's experiment is part of a growing collection of videos in which people are treating AI interviewers less like potential gatekeepers to employment and more like technology to be tested, confused, or outright mocked.
The internet has some questions for its new AI interviewers
Creators have been finding increasingly creative ways to "rage bait" automated interviews. One creator, The Dreadful Studio, answered an AI interviewer's questions entirely in gibberish. Instead of questioning the nonsensical responses, the bot continued the conversation, at times responding as though it had understood something meaningful, before eventually ending the interview.
The creator has also experimented with other ways of confusing automated recruiters, including answering questions with song lyrics and turning the interviewer's own questions back on it. What makes the videos particularly strange is how easily a chatbot can appear to follow along, even when nothing being said makes sense.
These are deliberately absurd experiments, but the appeal goes beyond watching a chatbot struggle. Job interviews are one of the few situations where people are expected to explain why they deserve to be chosen, often after navigating an application process that can feel impersonal and exhausting. Watching someone turn the tables on the interviewer, even an artificial one, offers a kind of satisfaction most can get behind.
And while some people are intentionally trying to break the technology, others have encountered AI interviewers that seem perfectly capable of doing that themselves.
In one viral video from 2025, an AI interviewer repeatedly uttered the phrase "vertical bar pilates" for nearly 30 seconds during what was supposed to be a job interview. Kendiana Colin, the college student who shared the encounter, said she wouldn't participate in another AI interview.
"It was like she was going through a tongue twister," Colin told Gazetteer SF. "It was really creepy."
For some job seekers, the issue isn't even whether the chatbot works. It's that they're being asked to interview with one at all.
Research from hiring platform Greenhouse published earlier this year found that 38 percent of surveyed job seekers had walked away from a hiring process because it involved an AI interview. Another 21 percent said they hadn't realized AI would be involved until the interview began.
Employers, however, see opportunities that extend well beyond having a chatbot ask introductory questions.
Companies are making AI interviews part of the hiring process
Earlier this month, TechCrunch reported that technical hiring platform HackerRank was making its AI interviewer, Chakra, generally available after more than 500,000 interviews during beta testing. Unlike a chatbot that simply works through predetermined questions, Chakra can observe candidates completing technical assignments, ask follow-up questions, and evaluate how they approach problems.
For employers, that could mean assessing more applicants without requiring a human interviewer for every interaction. But other companies are using AI interviews to test something different: how well candidates can work with the technology themselves.
Consulting firm McKinsey, for example, is experimenting with an AI-powered client simulation for some entry-level business analyst interviews, according to an Oct. 14 report from the Wall Street Journal. Candidates interact with a simulated client while human interviewers observe their performance. The firm is also reportedly testing how applicants use its internal AI assistant, Lilli, to work through business problems.
That creates an interesting distinction. Knowing how to use AI can be a qualification employers want, but using it without permission during an interview can still be considered cheating. According to a survey by the UK's Institute of Student Employers, 66 percent of surveyed employers had identified or suspected unauthorized AI use during interviews.
The concern is understandable. Someone secretly relying on generated answers might appear more knowledgeable than they actually are. But there's also an irony in companies embracing AI to evaluate candidates while investing in technology to catch applicants doing the same. Accenture, for example, says it uses AI to screen résumés, match candidates to jobs, and assist with assessments, while also employing proctoring tools and AI-detection methods to flag unauthorized AI use. HackerRank similarly monitors candidates' screens for suspicious activity, even as it allows them to use its own AI assistant when employers enable it.
For applicants, the rules aren't always obvious. In Greenhouse's 2026 survey, 70 percent of respondents said they weren't clearly informed upfront that AI would assess them.
And employers aren't the only ones worried about being deceived. Research attributed to Gartner suggests only about half of job seekers believe the postings they're applying to are legitimate. As AI makes it easier to generate convincing applications and automate interviews, both sides have more reasons to question who, or what, they're dealing with.
That could make something as ordinary as meeting face-to-face more appealing. Another Gartner finding suggests 62 percent of candidates would be more likely to apply for a job requiring an in-person interview. After years of moving more of the hiring process online, actually sitting down with another person could become a way to establish trust rather than just another step in the application process.
Companies may be able to automate more of hiring than ever before. But if neither side can be sure who's actually on the other end of an interview, will getting hired eventually require going back to meeting face-to-face?
A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
If you've noticed people dropping the fries emoji in TikTok comments lately, they're probably not hungry.
The French fries emoji (🍟), sometimes accompanied by a peace sign (✌️), has become a way for Gen Alpha to tell someone they're being corny, embarrassing, or simply talking too much. Think of it as the emoji equivalent of telling someone to wrap it up.
And like so much of Gen Alpha's internet slang, the joke isn't entirely new. It's the latest evolution of a meme that's been circulating online for years.
What does the fries emoji mean?
Depending on the context, the fries emoji can have a few different meanings, none of which have much to do with fast food.
On its own, 🍟 can be used to call someone or something "corny" or "cringe." It's a dismissive reaction to a joke that doesn't land, an embarrassing comment, or someone who's trying a little too hard.
Paired with the peace sign, 🍟✌️ generally means "wrap it up" or "just put the fries in the bag, bro." In other words, stop talking. (And if that sounds familiar, then keep reading.) The peace sign adds a little extra attitude, like waving goodbye to someone after deciding you've heard enough.
Of course, emoji slang isn't an exact science. Meanings can shift depending on who's using them and where they appear. But the underlying message is pretty consistent: Bro, just stop.
Where did the fries emoji meme come from?
To understand why Gen Alpha is using the fries emoji, you have to go back to the phrase "just put the fries in the bag, bro."
According to the internet anthropologists over at Know Your Meme, the meme became popular on TikTok in 2024 as a way to mock someone for talking too much, oversharing, or acting as if their opinion were more important than it actually was. Imagine someone delivering an unsolicited monologue when all you wanted was your fast-food order. Just put the fries in the bag, bro.
The joke has roots in an earlier variation, "just put the ketchup in my bag, bro," which started on Facebook and circulated online in 2022 before the fries version took off.
Over time, the phrase became a recognizable internet put-down. And now, instead of typing out an entire sentence, younger social media users are communicating the same sentiment with a couple of emoji.
It's a pretty efficient evolution of internet slang. A phrase becomes a meme, the meme becomes an inside joke, and eventually the joke gets reduced to a symbol that only makes sense if you're already in on it.
But there's also a more uncomfortable implication behind the original meme. "Just put the fries in the bag, bro" isn't simply telling someone to stop talking. It's telling them to know their place, using fast-food work as the punchline. The joke relies on the idea that someone working a service job isn't worth listening to, or that their job somehow makes their opinions less valuable.
That context is easy to lose when the entire phrase gets reduced to 🍟✌️. For younger Gen Z and Gen Alpha, the emoji combination might simply mean "wrap it up," but its origins reveal how quickly an internet joke can become detached from the attitudes that made it funny in the first place.
So the next time someone responds to your TikTok with 🍟✌️, consider it a sign that your audience thinks you've said enough.
A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
SAVE UP TO $132.28: As of Oct. 14, SwissGear's two-piece Energie Spinner Luggage Set is on sale on Amazon for up to 35% off. Normally $375, you can score it in gunmetal for $281.08 or white for $242.72 (with an on-page coupon).
I'm a serial overpacker who travels internationally at least once a year on top of regular domestic trips, which means my suitcases get put through the wringer. After being underwhelmed by a few different brands — Samsonites got dinged up shockingly fast — I landed on SwissGear's Energie Spinner hardside suitcases for their light weight, expandable design, and unmatched durability. They've survived tens of thousands of miles of travel at this point, and probably half a dozen friends and family members have bought them upon my rec.
I've found Energie Spinners on sale at a couple different retailers in the past, but right now, I'd buy them on Amazon. The two-piece set with a 19-inch carry-on and a 27-inch checked bag is currently on sale there for up to about $132 off, depending on the color. (It typically retails for $375, per SwissGear's website.)
I personally own the gunmetal set, which is marked down to $281.08, or 25% off. The white set is even cheaper at $242.72, or 35% off — note the coupon on its product page (below) — but bear in mind that it will show scuffs way more easily. Mine still look basically pristine.
Make sure to select the on-page coupon.Credit: Amazon / Mashable screenshot
Both suitcases have multi-directional spinner wheels, retractable locking handles, and a TSA lock. Inside, they've each got a zip compartment and clothing straps; the 19-inch carry-on also has a USB charging port that lets you charge your phone from a power bank you've packed. They're covered by a 10-year warranty.
A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
Aaron Sorkin, famed writer of TheWest Wing and Academy Award-winning The Social Network, is notoriously verbose. He has a reputation for linguistic flairs that some find awkward, and many find deeply compelling.
But in The Social Reckoning, a follow-up to the 2010 tale of Facebook's founding, he is uncharacteristically sparing.
Yes, Sorkin — who wrote and directed the new movie — crams the script with one-liners and existential metaphors, random pop culture references, and cries for change, but it's what he leaves out that viewers should pay attention to.
Through TheWall Street Journal's Jeff Horwitz (Jeremy Allen White)and Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), The Social Reckoning recounts the two years of work that made up the publication's explosive 2021 series, The Facebook Files. The birth of the exposé, a series of insider accounts of Facebook's decision to reroute its algorithm in service of polarizing extremism, is presented in two competing timelines.
In one, Huagen and Horwitz attempt to penetrate the Silicon Valley giant's defenses to learn the true scope of its wrongdoing. In the other, CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Jeremy Strong) readies himself to testify before Congress — as Jan. 6th insurrectionists storm the Capitol.
So it's strange that it's characters — real-life journalists, brave whistleblowers, and profit-driven tech overlords who had a direct role in the current administration's success — don't say the name "Trump."
Despite a third of the movie set in 2020, COVID-19 is largely referred to as "the novel virus." The movie skirts the rampant medical misinformation, spread by conservative conspiracy groups, that flourished on Meta platforms.
The movie also omits the full details of Facebook's startling algorithmic misconduct that surrounded and informed the events of The Social Reckoning. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Meta IRL
In 2018, the tech giant was implicated in a massive data breach that harvested user profiles to target U.S. voters ahead of President Donald Trump's 2016 election victory. Facebook had already been accused of a host of reported user privacy violations, including conducting an algorithm-based psychological study on unwitting users. Due to Facebook's outsized role in spreading fake news, the company's CEO was given the title "Misinformer of the Year" in 2017 by Media Matters for America.
Civil rights organizations like GLAAD have long deemed Meta's platforms unsafe for LGBTQ users. Facebook's algorithm has not only helped foster discord on home soil, but is also alleged to have had a role in global cultural genocides by human rights groups like Amnesty International.
Following Haugen's real-life congressional testimony, used as the final beat of Sorkin's film, the company was accused of exacerbating a youth mental health crisis, multiple deaths by suicide, and an explosion of real and synthetic child sexual abuse materials (CSAM). The first point is briefly touched on in the film, while the last is completely sidelined.
Three weeks after Haugen's congressional appearance in 2021, Facebook changed its name to Meta. The company then underwent a brief public-image overhaul — until Trump came back into power. Following his reelection, Meta gave $1 million to Trump's inauguration fund.
The Social Reckoning implores someone, anyone, to act. The film posits that the federal government may be able to hold Zuckerberg to account.
It hasn't.
One character, a member of the company's civic integrity team who helps leak internal reports about Instagram's impact on teen mental health, tells Haugen that something needs to be done before the company proceeds with its plan for "Instagram Kids."
Another real-life whistleblower, Arturo Béjar, has continued to testify to Meta's alleged intentional disregard for teen mental health in court.
Will Meta change?
In the film's epilogue, Sorkin describes Haugen's disclosure as having "caused some pain" for the company.
"I would not call it a massive pain for Meta," said Christine McComas, founding member of child safety advocacy group Parents for Safe Online Spaces (ParentsSOS). "It was a moment of clarity for people to understand what's going on."
Unlike Sorkin's more timid portrayal, McComas describes Haugen as a person who knew what she needed to do. McComas credits Haugen with galvanizing the work of bereaved parents whose children had died by suicide following abusive social media interactions.
That is an inexcusable failure of leadership.
As of publishing, more than 3,000 federal lawsuits have been filed against Meta alleging intentional harm to teen users. The film briefly mentions the work of attorneys general in amplifying these claims. Many of these cases are still ongoing or have settled out of court, but a few have resulted in surface level changes to Meta platforms.
Much like Teen Accounts, researchers argue the changes did not do enough to protect young users.
Concerted pressure from state leaders and child safety advocates has finally pushed Meta to agree to more substantive reform, such as algorithmic guardrails. Still, most argue that comprehensive federal regulation is the only way to truly curb Meta's harm.
Congressional leaders have "completely failed" to hold Meta and its competitors accountable, says Ashwin Verghese, communications director of child safety nonprofit Fairplay. "In fact, Congress has not passed a bill focused on keeping kids safe online in nearly 30 years. That is an inexcusable failure of leadership," Verghese said.
It has been years since the Wall Street Journal published The Facebook Files. To be fair to Sorkin, political change is slow. Courts have their limits when powerful, near monopolistic, companies are involved.
But there's a lingering question that the movie, given its timeline and broad topics, only mildly addresses through its luddite journalist, Horwitz: If Congress won't act, why won't we, as a society, just stop using Meta's problematic products?
Meta, why can't we quit you?
Compared to Horwitz, who is comedically introduced as someone who can't even use a GPS, Sorkin depicts Haugen as an idealist, clinging to the democratizing potential of Facebook. Her movie self is a firm believer that the platform's ability to foster social connection is a societal good. The character doesn't rally for Meta's shuttering, but for its reform.
In early 2026, professor and marketing expert Scott Galloway called for an industry-wide boycott of tech platforms with disproportionate political and economic power. Included in that list were Meta platforms WhatsApp and Facebook (Instagram is also in Meta's corporate roster).
One year earlier, swaths of users threatened to delete their Meta accounts following platform changes that signaled its alignment with the Trump administration, including the erasure of hateful conduct protections for LGBTQ users and the shuttering of its fact checking program. Years before that, users attempted to galvanize change through the 2018 #DeleteFacebook trend.
Yet, even with these calls, Meta has yet to see a mass exodus of users. The company only recently reported a substantial decline in daily users across its platforms. The loss was just 20 million of a reported 3 billion users. After the launch of its new AI agent Muse, Meta regained almost 2 million daily users.
Too many people are complacent because they don’t know an alternative.
"Meta has spent millions of dollars in public relations campaigns to claim their platforms are safe while denying responsibility," said Maurine Molak, advocate and co-founder of ParentsSOS. Molak was one of a group of survivor parents who received an apology from Zuckerberg during his 2024 congressional testimony.
Molak argues that Meta's billion-dollar PR spin has sowed confusion among parents, users, and even congressional leaders. Without clarity, users are more inclined to stay and avoid the pains of leaving.
"Too many people are complacent because they don’t know an alternative," explained Sam Hiner, executive director of the youth-led advocacy nonprofit Young People's Alliance. Hiner and Molak both argue one of the biggest hurdles to leaving Facebook is the Fear of Missing Out.
"If you’re not online, it feels like you’re missing out on an important cultural space," said Hiner. "It’s also hard for competitors to emerge because of the network effect — all of my friends are on Meta platforms, not whatever competitor may emerge."
Molak links this to Facebook's role as one of the first social media platforms. Millions, perhaps billions of adults, have spent nearly two decades building their accounts on Facebook and more than a decade on Instagram. Recntly, they have merged these accounts onto Meta's X-competitor Threads — a wave of users flocked to Threads after Elon Musk's take over of Twitter. It was the lesser of two evils.
Meta platforms are part of many's daily habit, maybe even their identity. With its foray into general AI and its diversification into massively popular chat platforms, users are getting wrenched deeper into Meta's web.
"Algorithms aren't visible, so it's understandably been quite difficult for most folks to connect the harms they experience in their communities — more people angry and outraged, more mental health problems, more anxious children — with some computer code designed in a faraway lab," explained Julie Scelfo, founder and executive director of Mothers Against Media Addiction.
This movie will not move the needle on Meta
Meta has not issued a statement on The Social Reckoning, and it probably never needs to. The film's opening weekend was an unequivocal flop.
The company is shielded by its buying power. In an April earnings call, the tech giant said it brought in $56.3 billion, probably tied to its ongoing generative AI investments.
"The monetary fines imposed on Meta are comparable to parking tickets," said Molak. In August, Meta settled out of a potentially consequential social media addiction lawsuit for the sum of $17 billion dollars — just one percent of its stock value, paid out over a decade.
During one pivotal moment between Horwitz and Haugen in The Social Reckoning, Haugen ponders if it's possible to push powerful people toward change.
"When it's about money, it's hard," says Horwitz. "When it's not about money, it's even harder."
A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
Netflix is breaking from its streaming service standard in a big way, as in IMAX.
Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew will be released in IMAX theaters worldwide for a 50-day window in 2027. And Mashable Entertainment Editor Kristy Puchko was among the clutch of film critics and reporters who were granted a sneak peek of Barbie director Greta Gerwig’s latest in IMAX at AMC Lincoln Center in New York on Tuesday morning.
Netflix premiered the trailer, which fans can now see above, along with some behind-the-scenes footage. Plus, Gerwig herself was in attendance to answer some questions from Stephen Colbert.
Gerwig shared with the audience how C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books have been a huge influence on her, as they were read to her before she could read on her own. "I would not be who I am without these books," she told Colbert of her reverence.
Then, once she’d learned to read, she read them over and over, eventually reveling in the BBC TV series adaptation, of which she said, "No notes…I think it’s amazing and I love the beaver costumes."
To prepare for adapting The Magician’s Nephew, Gerwig tried to walk in Lewis's footsteps. She reread all the Narnia books, along with his other works and works by authors he loved. She traveled to his stomping grounds of in Oxford, Cambridge, and Belfast “to align myself to what his interior life would be.” She also “ate a lot of Turkish Delight in prep for this film.”
What is Narnia: The Magician's Nephew?
The film, written and helmed by Gerwig, is based on The Magician's Nephew, the sixth novel in C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia series and the first in chronological order.
The book, which begins in 1900 — 40 years before the events of the first published Narnia novel — centers on 12-year-old Digory Kirke and his friend Polly Plummer, who travel to another world with the help of a mysterious ring. However, Gerwig’s version will shift the timeline to the 1950s, which could make for some curious obstacles if Netflix continues the film series. After all, World War II plays a key role in the next book chronologically (and the most iconic Narnia book), The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The Pevensie children stumble into Narnia after evacuating London during the Blitz, a sustained aerial bombing campaign carried out by the Nazi German Luftwaffe.
The book also unfurls the origin of Narnia, reaching back 1,000 years. To get a sense of how much of this story will be in Gerwig’s adaptation, take a look at the trailer above.
David McKenna, who recently played Piggy in Netflix’s miniseries adaptation of The Lord of the Flies, stars as Digory. Beatrice Campbell, who played young Lisle in Wes Anderson’s The Phoenician Scheme, will play Polly.
Gerwig's cast also boasts Emma Mackey, Carey Mulligan, Ciarán Hinds, Daniel Craig, Meryl Streep, Kobna Holdbrook-Smith, Denise Gough, and Susan Wokoma.
Why is "Stairway to Heaven" in the Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew trailer?
Gerwig noted to Colbert that Led Zeppelin rarely licenses this particular hit song. But she reached out to Jimmy Page and Robert Plant to entreat them to allow Netflix to use the song in the Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew trailer.
"It’s an epic song,” she explained. "It’s about a spiritual journey…false idols and the wrong roads you can go down." For her, this spoke to The Magician’s Nephew’s story, and Plant and Page, who she noted also adore Lewis’s works, agreed. "They too love C.S. Lewis and they have a reverence for his work," she revealed.
The key to Narnia for Gerwig is collaboration.
Speaking to Colbert, she explained how hundreds of artists came together to build Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew, from the sets and costumes to the music and performances. To ensure that everyone felt welcome to collaborate, the acclaimed director took a page from artist William Kentridge, who made a silkscreen piece called "A Safe Space For Stupidity".
Gerwig made a similar sign to hang above her office and said many collaborators came forward — citing the sign as an encouragement.
Together, they’ve created not only a Narnia fit for IMAX, but also glimpses of many fantastical worlds that already had this critic tearing up in awe.
Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew will open in IMAX and other theaters worldwide on Feb. 12, 2027, with sneak previews in IMAX beginning on Feb. 10, 2027. The film will debut on Netflix on April 2, 2027.
