Nike Air Force 1 Low 最新配色「Invisible Woman 2.0」率先曝光
這款被命名為 「Invisible Woman 2.0」 的新鞋，靈感來自 2006 年的原版設計，並保留了其透明 TPU 鞋面，它將原版的藍色皮革飾邊改為白色，而原本藍色的皮革 Swoosh 標誌則變為柔和的灰色。其他品牌標誌則採用了超級英雄家庭的藍白配色，點綴在鞋舌標籤、鞋墊、刺繡鞋跟標誌和鞋帶孔上；鞋底搭配白色中底和半透明的冰藍色外底，而鞋帶上鑲嵌有「AF1」字樣的閃亮鞋帶扣，為整體設計增添了璀璨的光澤。
《驚奇4超人/神奇4俠：第一步》預計於 2025 年 7 月 25 日在美國上映，而 Nike Air Force 1 Low 「Invisible Woman 2.0」預計將在 2025 年秋季發售，建議售價為 $130 美元。
>重返沉默之丘！《Return to Silent Hill》真人版電影「上映日期」正式公開
>消息稱 David Fincher 執導 Netflix 影集《破案神探》有望以三部曲電影回歸？
>New Balance 2000 ABZORB 最新配色「Blue Agate」正式登場
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Ad-supported streaming is the future. So why is the experience so bad?
We all need to stop getting mad about the fact that our favorite streaming series are now full of ads and focus on how awful those ads are. Yes, it is infuriating that streaming platforms sold a product they could not reasonably hope to sustain. The promise that, for a small fee, viewers would be granted instant access to a vast array of TV series and movies that they could watch when and where they desired, all at once and without the irritant of commercial breaks, seemed too good to be true. Which, of course, it was. Having lured millions of viewers away from cable and broadcast television, subscription services were first able to raise their rates and then, on top of that, introduce advertising. Far from freeing us from commercials, they now demand, just like cable, that we pay for the honor of watching them. Judging from recent reports, millions of new subscribers to Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, Disney+ and HBO Max are OK with that. According to the research firm Antenna, ad-supported subscriptions hit 100 million this year; according to Omar Karim, director of brand and video products for Amazon, that number will double by 2027. (Free ad-supported streamers like Tubi and Pluto TV are also seeing remarkable growth.) Commercial-free viewing is still possible for a higher-priced rate. But like business class on planes and Magic Key passes at Disneyland, those tiers may become a VIP experience (i.e., absurdly expensive), if they don't vanish altogether. With the cost of multiple streaming services already outstripping the much-maligned price of the cable bundle, ads on streaming are here to stay and will, no doubt, be increasing. So instead of wasting perfectly good outrage over the fact that, once again, a few technocrats have managed to get very rich by destroying the economy of a billion-dollar industry only to return to that industry's own earlier business plan, let's focus on the ad-supported streaming experience. Which is universally terrible. It's not just that so many of the spots are low-rent — and we are beyond being surprised by the graphic symptom/side-effect description of pharmaceutical ads — it's that they are often repeated several times during a program. For a single hour's viewing, this would be an annoyance. But streaming was built on the binge, which means a person can see the same damn truck commercial a dozen times in a single sitting. At which point it feels less like advertising and more like brainwashing, with the unintentional effect of ensuring that if I were in the market for a truck, I would literally buy any other model than the one that was 'Clockwork Orange'-d on me while I was trying to watch a murder-mystery series. Or, God forbid, a movie. If anything sends viewers back to the cineplex, it will be ads for depression meds in the middle of a rom-com or a sophisticated chase scene. And when I say middle, I mean middle. Subscription streaming was not built for ads and it shows: On Netflix, Prime Video and others, ads will more than occasionally appear midscene, often cutting off dialogue and almost always providing maximum narrative disruption. This is especially true for streaming shows made before ad-supported streaming became commonplace. In the old days, writers fashioned scripts to accommodate ads with scene breaks and fade-outs. Streaming promised to free them from this, which is one reason so many writers ran around calling television 'long form' and claiming each season was like shooting a 10-hour movie. Imagine watching a 10-hour movie with commercial breaks shoved in every 15 minutes or so. Not great, Bob. And it's not like you can fast-forward through them. We willingly relinquished the power of the DVR, which, when wielded properly, was essentially a DIY ad-free streamer, and put ourselves in the hands of people who think having a little countdown clock telling you how long the ads will last somehow makes up for the fact that they just interrupted a monologue. Again, it is difficult not to instantly hate whatever is being advertised, which, as I understand it, is not the point of any commercial. Even if you pay for the ad-free tier, series are often interrupted by weird little blips where, presumably, ads appear in economy seating. Presumably, creators are now factoring in the need for ads, but the current rhythm of streaming ads is maddeningly inconsistent — sometimes there are a bunch of spots at the beginning, sometimes wedged in the middle, sometimes scattered throughout. How's a writer supposed to cope with that? One can only hope that these are growing pains, that as with early dubbing fiascoes, the streaming services will realize that writing and editing around commercials is an art form in itself. Film and video editors and postproduction teams have a long history of prepping theatrical films for presentation on ad-supported television. For the love of God, hire professionals. According to Ad Age, this is the year to invest in streaming. Given the information-sharing and consumer-targeting tendencies of the digital universe, this is a bit worrisome — no one needs their last Amazon search for, say, pimple patches following them around as they try to watch 'The Summer I Turned Pretty.' But presumably, more advertisers will force the variety and quality of the ads and ad placement to improve. At this point, unless we're willing to fork over more and more money to chase the dream that once was streaming, that's the best we can hope for.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
The ‘Troublemaker' Behind Netflix's Biggest Gamble
When Netflix's leaders gathered in Reykjavik, Iceland, for a company retreat in 2019, Brandon Riegg, the executive in charge of nonfiction programming, didn't hold back. The company, he told the 150 people gathered there, should stream live events. He pointed to Amazon's sports deals with Major League Baseball and the N.F.L., and some hugely popular one-time spectacles. 'I think we need this,' he recently recalled saying at the meeting. Mr. Riegg's bosses didn't hold back, either. The company's top three executives at the time — Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos, its co-chief executives, and Greg Peters, the chief operating officer — interrogated him: Why spend so much money and time on programming that would account for a small percentage of total viewing? Why invest in something anathema to on-demand viewing, Netflix's core business? What would it really add? 'Usually you get one of them, or maybe two, weighing in on these debates,' Mr. Riegg said. 'I was sword-fighting with the three of these guys.' He's not getting that treatment anymore. Live programming is now a major priority at the streaming giant — and Mr. Riegg, 48, sits atop the effort, making him one of the most-watched executives in the entertainment world. His growing corner of Netflix includes unscripted series, sports, documentary series, and efforts to integrate gaming technologies, which allow viewers to vote for winners of a show, into unscripted events. Together, he is helping to transform Netflix's binge-on-your-own-time service into something more like the traditional broadcast networks, but on a global scale. Netflix's live boxing match last year between Jake Paul and Mike Tyson drew 65 million U.S. viewers, making it the country's most-watched sporting event of 2024 after the Super Bowl. The company aired two N.F.L. games on Christmas Day, both watched by millions of people, and will again this year. It has also paid $5 billion for a decade of rights to weekly W.W.E. shows. And there is much more to come. In September, Netflix will broadcast a fight between Canelo Álvarez and Terence Crawford; it will premiere a live version of 'Star Search' in January, where viewers will be able to vote in real time; and has secured the U.S. rights to FIFA's Women's World Cup for 2027. 'Brandon has been a troublemaker his whole time at Netflix,' Mr. Hastings, now the company's chairman, said in an email. 'He was years ago trying to get us into live and into fights. As he nailed unscripted, I could no longer hold back his ambition for us. And darn him, he has been wildly successful. He was right; I was wrong. I love him for it.' But Mr. Riegg's strategy still comes with big risks, firmly inserting the streaming giant into the cutthroat, competitive world of sports rights. Those spectacles can produce outsize results: It is the one type of programming where subscribers will tolerate commercials, producing millions in advertising revenue. But sports rights are hugely expensive — and the company hasn't fully overcome the technical issues required to seamlessly stream live shows to its 300 million subscribers around the world. Some of these issues swirled in Mr. Riegg's brain on a recent Friday, in the hours before the latest Netflix boxing match, a second rematch between Katie Taylor and Amanda Serrano. The fight didn't have the pre-fight buzz that came with Tyson-Paul match, though many fans were hoping Ms. Serrano could pull off an upset after losing twice to Ms. Taylor. But it was the first time an all-female fight card had been presented to Netflix audiences live around the world. Mr. Riegg approached the on-air analysts, Laila Ali and Kate Scott, inside Madison Square Garden as they ran through a final rehearsal. 'Like I said at the weigh-in, this is just the beginning,' said Ms. Ali, referencing the magnitude of this event for the female boxing community. 'I almost want Amanda to win once, you know what I mean.' Mr. Riegg knew exactly what she meant. Like other top entertainment executives, he understands that good television is all about good storytelling. A win for Ms. Serrano would mean the underdog had triumphed, and the crowd would be ecstatic. That is another risk with sports, though. You never quite know what you're going to get: a crowd-pleasing story, a dud, or something in between. 'Sometimes a game or match is high-flying and close,' he said, 'and sometimes it's a 3-0 N.F.L. game.' Hollywood Beckons Mr. Riegg started far from Hollywood. The oldest son of a State Department economist, he spent time in Washington and nearby Virginia before hitting spots around the globe during his school years, living in Taiwan, Beijing, London and Sri Lanka. Friends used to record and send him VHS tapes of his favorite shows, 'Fresh Prince of Bel-Air' and 'Parker Lewis Can't Lose.' He credits those tapes, worn out from overuse, to sparking his affinity for entertainment. 'It was a way for me to feel connected still to the U.S. and it gave me a good perspective on other cultures,' he said. After graduating from University of Pennsylvania, Mr. Riegg moved to Los Angeles with hopes of working in feature films. Yet his résumé reads more as a timeline tracking the proliferation of reality programming. He worked with Mark Burnett, the producer of 'Survivor,' on show called 'Boarding House: North Shore.' He then moved to VH1, finding success with the celebrity reality shows 'Breaking Bonaduce' and 'The Surreal Life.' 'These were not the shows my parents were bragging to their friends about,' he said. Yet he credits those shows, 'Bonaduce' specifically, with elevating his name around the industry. 'It was pretty groundbreaking at the time,' he said. 'No one had ever done an unvarnished, unfiltered follow doc about a celebrity before.' Mr. Riegg then moved over to ABC, where he was responsible for 'Dancing With the Stars' and 'Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.' In 2010, he jumped to NBC, overseeing 'Biggest Loser,' 'American Ninja Warrior' and 'America's Got Talent.' He spent his summers in New York during Howard Stern's time on the talent competition show, serving as the shock jock's main point of contact with the network. 'He showed great success at dealing with talent, and I think that's when he got the confidence,' said Alan Braun, the head of unscripted television at Creative Artists Agency. 'That was a big job for him because that is such an important franchise at NBC.' Bela Bajaria, then the head of global television for Netflix and now its chief content officer, hired him in 2016, at a time when the streaming giant was just dipping its toe into unscripted content. Mr. Riegg was given pretty much free rein. 'It was like I showed up at the Netflix mansion and Ted walked me down the hallway, opened a door into a totally empty room and said, 'Here you go,'' Mr. Riegg said, referring to Mr. Sarandos. 'That is exhilarating to hear, but also terrifying.' Lightning in a Bottle? At Netflix, the first show Mr. Riegg released was a reboot of 'Queer Eye,' now completing its 10th and final season. He also debuted two successful cooking shows: 'Nailed It' and 'Sugar Rush,' proving that a variety of unscripted content can succeed on the service. 'They all blew way past any projection of what any unscripted show could do,' he said. But the biggest gamble he ever took, he said, was starting a reality show spinoff of the Korean drama 'Squid Game,' a global phenomenon and the company's most popular series ever. No entertainment company had successfully created a reality show based on one of its scripted shows. If his show failed, it could mar one of Netflix's crown jewels. But if he got it right, the show could possibly open up a new world of reality programming. 'This is either going to destroy both our careers or it's going to be a huge success,' Stephen Lambert, the producer of the reality show, 'Squid Game: The Challenge,' recalls Mr. Riegg telling him. The show wound up costing $40 million, one of the most expensive reality television shows ever. But viewers showed up in droves to watch 456 contestants play for $4.56 million. And it generated renewed interest in the scripted 'Squid Game' ahead of its next season. Season 2 of the competition series will debut in November, and a third season has already been ordered. Netflix will try to replicate that success with two upcoming shows: 'Monopoly,' and 'Willy Wonka: The Golden Ticket.' 'I don't know if we got lightning in a bottle, or if we actually cracked a little bit of the code,' Mr. Riegg said. 'Time will tell.' Avoiding a 'Westside' A common refrain inside Netflix is, 'If you're not failing, you're not trying.' Mr. Riegg's biggest failure in his nine-year tenure, the show 'Westside,' has become something of an urban legend within the company. The show, released in 2018, tracked the lives of nine struggling musicians in Los Angeles. Mr. Riegg describes it as 'The Hills' meets 'Cop Rock,' with each contestant breaking into song when their emotions overtake them. The show attracted so few viewers that Mr. Riegg initially thought it wasn't appearing on the service. He spent hours on the phone with the product team questioning the company's technology. That wasn't the problem. Mr. Hastings sent Mr. Riegg and his team the meager viewership figures with a note that simply read, 'Ouch!' Today the show's name is shorthand for a flop. Mr. Riegg said Mr. Sarandos, the company's co-chief executive, often quips: 'At least it's not a 'Westside.' ' No one thinks that Mr. Riegg's deals for live programming will result in another 'Westside.' But the stakes, and dollars involved, are much higher — particularly as the company weighs how deeply to invest in sports rights. Mr. Riegg insists it is a necessary risk for Netflix to add a robust new aspect to Netflix's programming with spectacles that bring viewers together en masse. Though he says he still isn't convinced that acquiring an entire season of a sports league is the way to go for the company. He considered the Taylor-Serrano fight, for example, to be a 'no-brainer.' Boxing had proved to be a sport Netflix viewers would tune into. The two women had fought as part of the undercard the night of Tyson-Paul match, with their bout becoming one of the most-talked about moments of the evening. Viewership of their recent rematch — yet another victory for Ms. Taylor — did not come close to the Tyson-Paul event, attracting 6 million at its peak. But Mr. Riegg suggested that the figure was encouraging. Now he's searching for ways to best the 'high-water mark' of Tyson-Paul. 'The competitive part of me would love to top that,' he said. 'The realist in me thinks something will beat it. I don't know what it will be and I don't know how quickly it will be.' But, he insists, he will keep looking. Read by Nicole Sperling Audio produced by Sarah Diamond.
Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
Meghan Markle in talks with Netflix after ‘reputation nosedive' leaves her future ‘dubious': experts
As Meghan Markle celebrates her 44th birthday, many royal watchers are wondering what the future holds for her. Several royal experts claimed to Fox News Digital that the Duchess of Sussex is quietly in talks with Netflix to extend her partnership with the streaming giant. The company is a partner of her lifestyle brand, As Ever, which launched in February. Her lifestyle series, "With Love, Meghan," which highlights some of her products, became available for streaming in March. "Much depends on what it is, if Prince Harry is involved and, if so, in what way," royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams told Fox News Digital. "Her critically panned lifestyle series was watched by over 5 million people, so there may be a third season." "Since Harry is reportedly offering to share his official diary of engagements with the royal family, he's clearly bent on some form of reconciliation with his father, at least," Fitzwilliams shared. "[There may be] a very different approach from Harry and Meghan." Experts recently told Fox News Digital the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's five-year $100 million Netflix deal will likely expire in September. While season two of "With Love, Meghan" has already been filmed and is scheduled to premiere this fall, the possibility of a third season remains unknown. The royal couple signed the Netflix deal in 2020, shortly after they stepped down as senior royals and left the U.K. Fox News Digital reached out to Netflix and a spokesperson for Archewell, which handles the offices of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, for comment. A Hollywood insider previously confirmed to People magazine the couple's multi-year production agreement won't be extended, reflecting a broader shift in Netflix's business strategy. The outlet revealed that Netflix has been moving away from large, multi-project agreements. It pointed out that former President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama's initial multi-year deal with their production company, Higher Ground, transitioned into a "first-look agreement." If Netflix passes on a specific project, it can be shopped elsewhere. Still, the outlet noted this doesn't rule out new seasons of Meghan's show being filmed or new collaborations being created. "[Netflix is] not unhappy with how things turned out," a source told The Sun. The U.K.'s Daily Mail also reported that the mother of two is locked in negotiations with Netflix. "Make no mistake, a deal is being worked through as we speak," sources close to Netflix told the outlet. "If you're in the top third of Netflix, you're getting another deal." "What happens at the end of the contract is that people renegotiate," another source told the outlet. "But when doing any kind of commercial negotiation, both sides are not allowed to talk about it." British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital the former American actress will need to drive a hard bargain to strike up a different kind of deal for herself. WATCH: MEGHAN MARKLE WILL NEVER WIN OVER UK PUBLIC AGAIN, AUTHOR CLAIMS "Meghan Markle's future is dubious," Fordwich claimed. "The contract conclusion is a public setback and humiliation. It's tangible proof of her plummeting popularity and lack of public interest. … [And] Netflix has a really good gauge of what the public wants to view." "I have heard speculation regarding her trying to secure new partnerships," Fordwich shared. "[But] I simply can't see others wanting to risk being associated with her track record." British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard told Fox News Digital there are whispers Meghan is working on an agreement with Netflix or "possibly a first-rights agreement." "Meghan has taken a reputation nosedive," said Chard, noting she needs "a reputation boost within the court of public opinion." "This will bring her brownie points and financial prizes," said Chard. "Meghan will continue to hustle her wares and beaver away until she builds her empire." Fitzwilliams pointed out that, in the U.K., "Meghan scores appallingly low in the polls, as does Harry." The couple's debut docuseries, "Harry & Meghan," in which they spoke about their struggles with royal life, remains the platform's most-watched debut. However, their other programming, such as "Heart of Invictus" and "Polo," haven't fared as well. Doug Eldridge, a branding expert and the founder of Achilles PR, told Fox News Digital it would make sense for Meghan to be in negotiations. "She never cracked the top 300 of the most-watched titles in the first half of 2025, so taking a haircut on the re-up would make sense from Netflix's point of view," Eldridge warned. "That said, since the streaming giant has an equity stake in Meghan's retail success, they are equally incentivized to extend their exposure through their platform as it directly translates to commercial success," he explained. "Their feet aren't taped to the pedals at this point, but you know how that process works: If you stop pedaling, you tip over. Both parties would be wise to do a series of one-year extensions, until the 'speed' slows and the front wheel starts to wobble. At that point, Meghan should be able to coast on her own in a commercial sense." Eldridge predicts Meghan will prioritize expanding her lifestyle brand, with or without Netflix's help. "For the first time, Meghan has a map and a clean windshield," he said. "In other words, she has a sense of direction … a clear path in front of her and the ability to get there. "Just steer clear of the rumble strips (royal family drama) and don't get distracted by other drivers (competitors) or the ones who are pulled over on the shoulder (critics). Stay in your lane, set the cruise control and make good time. You'll get there if you choose to do so." Royal expert Ian Pelham Turner also agreed that Meghan will continue focusing on her latest role of entrepreneur. "Unshackled from royal constraints, Meghan survives to thrive," he said. "Her ever-faithful husband will always be her strongest ally by her side." Chard also noted that Netflix may not want to give up the Sussexes — at least Meghan — so easily. "Understandably, Netflix would rather hang on to Meghan, and it's not because of her lifestyle show," she explained. "Her series may be a loss. … However, they can see cash bells ringing going forward. They are invested in her product line. It also wouldn't be a good look for Netflix to drop her. Who'd want egg on their face after investing a significant amount of cash? "They are aware that more products can be rolled out," Chard continued. "If you look at the success of wine product lines launched by celebrities, the As Ever wine alone could be Meghan's success story. A concentrated effort to flip Meghan's appeal and reputation is key to the luxurious lifestyle she covets. Let's face it, other streaming platforms would jump into Netflix's shoes for the exclusive rights." But not everyone is convinced. "I have heard speculation regarding her trying to secure new partnerships for reality TV, daytime talk or, perhaps remarkably, a pivot to fashion or other product lines," said Fordwich. "This seems rather far-fetched, though. "Nevertheless, we can anticipate she won't ever stop wanting to have the spotlight on herself. So, seeking new media vehicles or influencer roles in an … attempt to maintain relevance will likely continue." Meghan told People magazine in March she's open to what the future has in store for her, both personally and professionally. "Can you imagine? This is just the beginning," she said. "Life is full of surprises."
