The offspring, whom McKellen’s Julian Sklar vividly describes as wrecks — one a train wreck, one a shipwreck — feel they deserve an inheritance they’re smart enough to know they won’t receive through any will — or talent of their own. The specialist and sometimes forger Lori (Coel) has other motives. There’s the promise of paying rent, yes, but there’s also an element of revenge. Lori and Julian have a kind of history that the movie will reveal in time. She’s also been publicly critical of his later works.

But “The Christophers” is not an “Ocean's” movie or a “Logan Lucky,” which is to say it’s not really a heist. There’s the tease of one, right up until the end, and the promise of the con. This latest film by the great and astonishingly prolific Steven Soderbergh is not out to give the audience what they think they want from him. Instead, it’s a meditation on art, legacy, creativity and the oh-so-touchy subject of who has the right to critique. It might sound a bit dreary, but Ed Solomon’s razor-sharp script and the brilliant pairing of McKellen and Coel make this lean two-hander breeze by.

You can read however much you want into how much Soderbergh (or Solomon) may or may not relate to Julian, who is determined to burn, bury and shred the unfinished “Christophers,” a series of paintings of a former boyfriend that became his most famous. It’s a fun and prickly exercise for any creative person to reconcile with the peaks and lulls of a long career in the arts — and Julian is luckier than most. He actually got famous and relatively wealthy from his paintings.

Julian huffs that “to judge art one must possess the skills to make said art.” It’s the kind of statement that, if given in an interview, might launch a thousand think pieces. Julian is both old and a devout rebel, with a lifetime’s worth of wisdom, wit and burned bridges in his arsenal. It’s a potent combination ripe for internet virality, but at the moment his online presence is mostly relegated to something akin to Cameo messages for 149 pounds a pop (249 if he mimes a signature).

When Lori arrives, he suddenly has an audience for his theatrical, nonstop musings: fun for McKellen, his character and the audience, but not so much for Lori, who absorbs the monologuing with steely indifference until she decides to take more control of the situation. There’s a bit of the generational disconnect that happens, but it’s somehow never cliche or predictable. The story zigs and zags with its characters as they work through the situation at hand and the larger issues both seem to be plagued by. The script throws a lot of ideas out there and, refreshingly, none of them is to be taken as dogma, especially not Julian’s comment about who has the right to judge art. Like many things he says, it’s probably just the most withering thing he could think of at the moment.

It is a funny thing, though, to critique a movie that does have so much to say about criticism, about what the person behind the keyboard might actually have the guts to say out loud to the person courageous enough to make something and put it out in the world. Perhaps it’s not actually that hard when the movie is as solid as “The Christophers,” or when the filmmaker in question is on a roll like Soderbergh with both “Presence” and “Black Bag.” His movies may have gotten smaller, but the verve remains.

“The Christophers,” a Neon release in New York and LA on Friday and nationwide on April 17, is rated R by the Motion Picture Association for “language.” Running time: 100 minutes. Three stars out of four.

“Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County” premiered on MTV in 2004, following a group of affluent high school students in the coastal California city as they navigated friendship, romance, and the transition to adulthood. The show helped establish a cinematic, serialized style of reality storytelling and served as a launchpad for multiple cast members, including Cavallari, Conrad, and Stephen Colletti, who all went on to build careers in television, fashion, and media.

At the center of the original series was a love triangle between Cavallari, Conrad, and Colletti, with producers and editors often framing Conrad as the “good girl” narrator and Cavallari as a more rebellious foil. The storyline frequently portrayed the young women as rivals competing for Colletti’s attention, a narrative that both Cavallari and Conrad now say was more exaggerated on screen than it was in their real lives as teenagers.

In the recent “Extra” interview tied to “The Reunion: Laguna Beach,” Cavallari described rewatching the original series as a “rollercoaster” but emphasized that she and her former castmates can now laugh at the drama that once defined them. She specifically noted that her storyline with Conrad worked out “exactly how it was supposed to,” adding that the tension between them was “sort of the allure” and questioning whether the show would have succeeded if they had simply gotten along on camera.

Cavallari suggested that if she and Conrad had been placed together as friends rather than rivals, viewers might have seen a less dramatic version of their lives, and she mused that the series could have been less compelling as a result. Her comments echo a long‑running conversation among reality TV alumni about how conflict is often foregrounded in editing, even when the people involved have more nuanced or evolving relationships away from the cameras.

In earlier reflections on the series, Cavallari has said she and Conrad were “never friends” during high school and that their interaction was limited even before MTV started filming, a point that underscores how the show amplified specific moments into an overarching feud. She has also shared on her own podcast “Let’s Be Honest with Kristin Cavallari” that revisiting the show and reconnecting with past castmates has been unexpectedly healing, particularly as she works through how her teenage self was framed on national television.

The renewed discussion around Cavallari’s comments comes as The Roku Channel prepares to debut “The Reunion: Laguna Beach” on April 10, a special that brings together key alumni including Cavallari, Conrad, Colletti, and other original cast members. The reunion marks roughly 20 years since the show first premiered, and it arrives at a time when early‑2000s reality series are finding renewed interest among viewers through streaming platforms and nostalgia‑driven retrospectives.

Conrad has described the reunion as an opportunity to reconnect with her former castmates on more equal footing as adults and to revisit the way their stories were told in the early days of unscripted television. She told “Entertainment Tonight” that she felt “now is the best time” to revisit the series, noting that she has enough distance from the show and its fallout to look back without wanting to return to reality TV in a full‑time capacity.

In a separate interview with “Extra,” Conrad highlighted a new one‑on‑one conversation with Cavallari filmed for the reunion, set around a bonfire, which she called an important first despite the two women having become friendly off camera in recent years. As a producer on the reunion, Conrad said she felt it was important to include the scene because viewers had never actually seen the two of them sit down one‑on‑one on the original series, even though their supposed feud dominated the narrative.

Off screen, the relationship between Cavallari and Conrad has shifted significantly since their high school years and the early “Laguna Beach” and “The Hills” era. In interviews and on her “Let’s Be Honest” podcast, Cavallari has said that participating in the reunion helped close a long chapter and that she and Conrad have now put any lingering tensions to rest.

Cavallari publicly shared in 2025 that she and Conrad are “friends” after filming the reunion, a statement echoed in reporting that emphasized how the former rivals had finally ended their long‑standing feud. She described the process of filming as “healing,” saying it helped her reconcile her image as the show’s onscreen antagonist with how she sees herself now as a parent, entrepreneur, and media personality.

Conrad, who has built a career in fashion, writing, and lifestyle media since leaving reality television, recently told People on the reunion’s red carpet that she and Cavallari “have so much in common” and have maintained their friendship after filming. She added that they have been “having so much fun just texting and talking and laughing together,” suggesting that the two former co‑stars now relate to one another more as adults navigating similar industries than as teenagers at the center of a love triangle.

The pair also spoke with The News International about how producers and editing once fueled their on‑screen fights, particularly around their shared history with Colletti. They emphasized that their relationship today is far removed from the chaotic dynamic audiences saw in the mid‑2000s, with both looking back on those years through a lens of distance and maturity.

Cavallari’s latest comments about needing the rivalry for “Laguna Beach” to work arrive amid growing public interest in how early reality shows constructed character archetypes, especially for young women and LGBTQ+ people whose real lives were often more complex than what aired. While “Laguna Beach” focused on a predominantly straight, cisgender group of students, critics and fans have since noted that the show contributed to a broader template of reality storytelling that sometimes sidelined or stereotyped queer and gender‑diverse classmates who were not part of the main cast.

The new reunion special and accompanying interviews do not center LGBTQ+ storylines, but they do engage with questions of how editing and production shaped public perceptions of the cast’s identities, relationships, and conflicts. For many viewers who grew up with the show, seeing Cavallari and Conrad reflect on the pressures they faced as teenage girls filmed for national TV offers a window into how mid‑2000s reality series framed femininity, popularity, and romantic competition.

Cavallari’s acknowledgment that the series “worked” because of a rivalry also underlines how central conflict remains to many reality formats, even as newer productions aim to be more inclusive of diverse identities and experiences. In revisiting their shared past, Cavallari and Conrad are simultaneously affirming the role that their teenage drama played in the show’s success and challenging audiences to see them as more than the labels of “angel” and “villain” that once defined them.

As “The Reunion: Laguna Beach” debuts, Cavallari’s reflections about needing the rivalry to make the show work add another layer to the ongoing reevaluation of early reality television and its impact on the people who starred in it. For fans and critics alike, the special offers a chance to watch former rivals share the screen not as adversaries, but as adults who have reclaimed ownership over their stories and publicly affirmed a friendship that once seemed impossible.

In The City will premiere on Tuesday, May 19 at 9 p.m. ET/PT on Bravo, airing directly after the Season 10 finale of Summer House at 8 p.m. as part of a two‑hour crossover event. Episodes will stream the following day on Peacock, continuing the network’s strategy of pairing linear premieres with next‑day streaming access.

The three‑minute first look at In The City showcases returning Summer House figures Amanda Batula, Kyle Cooke, and Lindsay Hubbard as they navigate shifting relationships and career pressures in New York. The trailer underscores a central tension for the group: maintaining friendships and romantic connections as “seasons change” from carefree summers to the demands of city life in the fall.

Media coverage has noted that the preview arrives as viewers continue to discuss the on‑screen and off‑screen dynamics between Amanda Batula and fellow Summer House cast member West Wilson, a storyline that has drawn heightened attention during the current season. In the trailer, one moment shows Batula and Wilson sharing an affectionate hug, which some outlets have framed in the context of that ongoing “scandal” narrative, though the footage itself offers limited context beyond that interaction.

The teaser also emphasizes scenes of city nightlife, group outings, and emotionally charged conversations, aligning In The City with other Bravo ensemble reality formats that balance social drama with personal growth arcs. Though the trailer does not foreground any specific LGBTQ+ storylines, the show’s New York setting and ensemble-party format have historically intersected with diverse queer nightlife spaces and communities within the broader Summer House franchise, a dimension that may emerge more clearly when episodes air.

Bravo has confirmed that In The City’s cast will blend well‑known Summer House personalities with several newcomers to the franchise. At the center of the ensemble are Amanda Batula, Kyle Cooke, and Lindsay Hubbard, all long‑time figures within the original Summer House series.

The cast also includes Summer House alum Danielle Olivera and former cast member Andrea Denver, who appears on the show with his wife Lexi Sundin as the couple confronts a significant decision about their shared future. Joining them are new cast members Eoin Heavey, Nick Barber, Yvonne Najor, Georgina Ferzil, Whitney Fransway, Kenny Martin, Gavin Moseley and Katie Arundel, rounding out a large ensemble intended to reflect different stages of adult life in the city.

According to summaries shared with outlets, the cast members are portrayed as navigating “the biggest transitions of their lives,” including marriage, separation, parenthood, reinvention, and the challenge of “growing up without growing apart.” Those themes mirror narrative arcs commonly seen across Bravo’s ensemble reality series, in which friendships, romantic partnerships, and chosen family structures are tested by changing career paths and personal identities.

In The City’s first season was filmed in fall 2025, directly following production on Summer House Season 10, placing the events of the spinoff in close chronological proximity to the storylines currently airing on Bravo. The network had originally announced the project—then described as a working‑title spinoff following New Yorkers living and working in Manhattan—in September 2025, teasing the show with a social media reel captioned “City life: activated! A new series is coming soon…” on its official accounts.

Further details emerged during BravoCon 2025, where executive producer and Truly Original co‑founder Glenda Hersh suggested that In The City could become a distinct franchise model, with the potential for future iterations that do not necessarily originate from Summer House. At the convention, cast member Kyle Cooke also hinted that viewers could expect “some familiar faces and some new faces,” a description that aligns with the ensemble now officially confirmed for the premiere season.

In The City is produced by Truly Original, with executive producers Steven Weinstock, Glenda Hersh, Lauren Eskelin, Jamie Jakimo, Lori Gordon, Tamara Najm Coudurier and Faith Gaskins attached to the project. The series marks the third official spinoff of Summer House, following Winter House, which premiered in 2021, and Summer House: Martha’s Vineyard, which launched in 2023 with a predominantly Black cast and has been noted by fans and critics for its representation of Black professionals and queer people within vacation‑house reality storytelling.

Early synopses position In The City as a series about friends and former costars balancing milestones such as marriage, separation and parenthood with the demands of careers and city living, rather than primarily focusing on weekend party culture. The trailer intercuts scenes of nights out, rooftop gatherings and apartment conversations with more introspective moments, suggesting that relationship transitions and questions about growing up will feature prominently in the show’s narrative.

As with many ensemble reality shows set in major metropolitan areas, the series is positioned to intersect with a range of communities, including LGBTQ+ people who are often central to New York’s social and nightlife scenes, though specific queer cast identities or storylines have not been explicitly detailed in current promotional materials. For LGBTQ+ viewers, the show’s focus on chosen friendships, evolving relationships and questions of self‑reinvention may resonate with experiences of building community and navigating identity in urban spaces, even if those themes are not explicitly framed through a queer lens in advance publicity.

By pairing In The City’s premiere with the Summer House Season 10 finale, Bravo is inviting viewers to follow familiar personalities from one chapter of their lives into another, potentially offering a more continuous narrative for fans invested in the cast’s relationships and personal development. For now, the network and producers are emphasizing the show’s premise of documenting how adults navigate changing seasons—both literal and figurative—in a city where friendships, romances and chosen families often evolve in unexpected ways.

In the post, Kehlani wrote, “ublic service announcement… don’t ever fix your mouth to speak to me or ask for a photo or compliment me if you work for ICE. i’m dead to u.” She continued, “don’t acknowledge me and delete all my music,” explicitly rejecting any association or fandom from people employed by the immigration enforcement agency.

The text appeared over a selfie-style image that seemed to be taken at an airport, though Kehlani did not explain what specific incident or encounter, if any, triggered the message. As of publication time, there were no additional details from Kehlani about the context behind the Story, and no public comment from ICE addressing her remarks.

The latest post is part of a consistent line of criticism Kehlani has directed at ICE, including comments made during and around the 2026 Grammy Awards, where she won her first two Grammys. At the ceremony in Los Angeles, Kehlani received the award for Best R&B Performance for her hit “Folded” and used her acceptance speech to call for collective action among artists and to denounce the agency.

On stage at the Crypto.com Arena, Kehlani told the audience that “everybody is so powerful in this room” and that together they are “stronger in numbers to speak against all the injustice going on in the world right now.” She urged fellow artists not to leave advocacy to “just a couple of you here and there,” saying she hoped they would “join together as a community of artists and speak out against what’s going on” before ending the speech with the words, “I’m gonna leave this and say, f*** ICE.”

Kehlani also addressed ICE on the Grammy red carpet, where she wore an “ICE out” pin and spoke about wanting to make a strong statement. She told The Hollywood Reporter that she “really wanted to say ‘f*** ICE,’ but I think they needed some ‘couth’ or something on the carpet,” describing herself as “a little couthless, ruthless” while emphasizing that artists are “too powerful of a group to all be in the room at the same time and not make some kind of statement in our country.”

Kehlani’s latest comments fit into a longer record of political engagement and advocacy on issues beyond immigration enforcement, including vocal support for Palestinians. The artist has publicly taken positions on U.S. foreign policy and human rights, including sharing an infographic that referred to former President Joe Biden as “Genocide Joe” while calling for a ceasefire, according to earlier coverage.

Those positions have had professional consequences, including the cancellation of a scheduled performance at Cornell University’s Slope Day in April 2025, which the university called off after Kehlani’s advocacy on Palestine drew backlash. Kehlani later described receiving “highly organized, typed-out, detailed death threats” over her stance on the issue, underscoring the personal risks some public figures incur when aligning themselves with contentious political causes.

In 2024, she expressed anger at what she viewed as silence from well-resourced peers in the entertainment industry, stating that many artists had “already beat the f**king game” yet would not “stop for a second” to recognize their reliance on the public and “reach back for people.” At that time, she urged other musicians to speak up, framing outspoken advocacy as a responsibility that comes with large platforms and significant success.

Kehlani’s stance against ICE is part of a broader tradition of musicians using cultural influence to raise concerns about immigration policy and state power, especially in communities heavily impacted by enforcement actions. In her recent remarks, she linked artistic visibility with political responsibility, telling Grammy viewers that artists in the room are “so powerful” and should use that collective power to “speak out against what’s going on” in the world.

Her call for ICE officers to delete her music goes beyond a symbolic slogan by directly rejecting a segment of potential listeners based on their institutional role, an unusually pointed move in an industry where broad listenership is often celebrated. The statement effectively draws a boundary between Kehlani’s work and the agency’s enforcement activities, suggesting that the values expressed in her art are incompatible with the missions carried out by ICE.

Kehlani’s public persona has also been shaped by their openness about personal identity, including queer and gender-expansive experiences, which have informed how many LGBTQ+ listeners connect to her music and activism. While the latest Instagram message did not explicitly reference LGBTQ+ communities, her broader advocacy—particularly on issues of racial justice, immigration, and international solidarity—resonates for many people whose lives sit at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities.

As of the most recent reports, there has been no widely reported formal response from major music industry bodies or recording partners specifically addressing Kehlani’s directive to ICE officers to delete her music. Coverage has instead emphasized the continuity between her Instagram message and the “f*** ICE” remarks delivered both in her Grammy acceptance speech and during red-carpet interviews.

During the Grammys, Kehlani framed her commentary as part of a collective push, stating that it is “brainless” for such a “powerful” group of artists to gather “and not make some kind of statement in our country.” That framing suggests she sees the award show stage not only as personal recognition but also as an opportunity to align mainstream music culture with organized resistance to policies and agencies she views as harmful.

The Instagram Story telling ICE officers to delete her music reinforces that positioning by bringing the criticism into everyday digital spaces where fans, critics, and public servants may all encounter the same message. Even without a detailed explanation of what prompted the post, the language mirrors her earlier, more formal statements, underscoring that her stance on ICE is sustained rather than spontaneous.

Kehlani’s ongoing advocacy—whether aimed at immigration enforcement, U.S. foreign policy, or broader questions of justice—continues to position her as one of the contemporary artists most willing to risk controversy in order to speak directly to governmental power. As her latest message circulates online, it adds another entry to the evolving record of how musicians, fans, and public institutions negotiate the boundaries between art, politics, and accountability in a polarized era.

According to Farahan, the two first met while working in the fitness industry and quickly became, in his words, “inseparable,” spending extensive time together before their friendship “crossed the line” into a sexual relationship. He says he wanted a deeper, more defined partnership, but felt Harper was not interested in anything serious, so he chose not to press for exclusivity and instead allowed the relationship to remain casual.

Farahan notes that he is now married to Adam Neely and frames the period with Harper as an earlier chapter that shaped his understanding of what he wanted in a long‑term, loyal relationship. In past interviews, Farahan has been open about his marriage and about balancing reality‑TV visibility with his private life, including on Bravo platforms and related press coverage, though those earlier conversations did not include these new details about Harper.

Farahan says that what began as a fling took on new complexity when Harper later married a man named Scott, whom Farahan also came to know well. Rather than end contact once Harper entered a new marriage, Farahan recounts that he grew close with both partners, and that over time he understood the situation to have evolved into a threesome‑style arrangement among all three men.

He characterizes the experience as “bittersweet,” saying he did not harbor ill will toward Scott and emphasizing his affection for Harper and his spouse during that period, even as the emotional terrain remained complicated. Farahan also notes that Scott has since died, and he reflects on the relationship dynamic with a mix of tenderness and acknowledgment of the difficult feelings that came with not being a primary partner.

Farahan says that his ongoing closeness with the couple at the time challenged him to confront his own boundaries and needs in relationships, particularly around hierarchy, emotional security, and the desire to be a fully acknowledged partner rather than an auxiliary figure. He frames these reflections in the memoir as part of a broader narrative about queer relationships, chosen family, and the sometimes‑blurred lines between friendship, romance, and sexual connection in LGBTQ+ social circles.

Although the new memoir‑related account is the most detailed public description of the relationship, Harper had previously acknowledged a romantic past with Farahan on Bravo’s late‑night talk show Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen. In a 2015 segment, Harper told Cohen that he and Farahan “had a thing—a very, very long time ago,” adding, “It was a tawdry little thing! I love Reza though. I love him!” while declining to elaborate on specifics.

Following that on‑air revelation, Bravo’s Daily Dish reported that Farahan confirmed the pair had dated “very long ago,” joking that it was “in the early 1800s,” and said he and Harper remained in touch and had real‑estate business dealings, with Harper as his client. At the time of that report, Farahan was engaged to Adam Neely and expressed positive feelings toward Harper, calling him a dear friend and reiterating that there was no animosity between them.

The newly surfaced details extend that public narrative by describing how the earlier “thing” referenced on television unfolded over time and how it intersected with Harper’s subsequent marriage to Scott. Farahan also says the two men have stayed connected well into the present, noting that he recently assisted Harper in selling a house, underscoring that their relationship—while transformed—remains cordial and collaborative.

In discussing the emotional impact of the threesome‑style dynamic, Farahan describes the experience as a turning point that shifted how he viewed his worth and role in intimate relationships. He says it became clear to him that he did not want to be “anyone’s second choice,” framing the chapter with Harper and Scott as a catalyst for seeking a more stable, mutually committed partnership.

Farahan credits that realization with pushing him toward a vision of long‑term love that centered loyalty, emotional safety, and reciprocity—qualities he associates with his later marriage to Neely. In earlier Bravo coverage, Farahan has spoken about wanting greater affection and connection in his marriage, indicating a continued focus on honest communication and mutual care within his current relationship.

The memoir excerpts portray this evolution as part of a longer journey for Farahan as a gay Iranian American man navigating expectations from family, culture, and the reality‑TV spotlight. In other interviews, he has discussed the pressure of being openly gay in Persian communities while in the public eye, including in podcast appearances where he reflects on authenticity and personal growth, although those conversations predate the latest revelations about Harper.

Farahan’s decision to go on record about the threesome‑style relationship also reflects a broader trend of LGBTQ+ public figures using books and long‑form interviews to revisit and reframe earlier media narratives. His career, from Shahs of Sunset to new projects such as The Valley: Persian Style, has frequently involved candid discussions of queer relationships, friendship conflicts, and family expectations, making his private life a recurring subject of fan interest and tabloid coverage.

Harper, who publicly came out as gay on The Biggest Loser in 2013, has similarly seen aspects of his personal life—including past relationships—scrutinized in entertainment media, with Farahan’s name appearing in profiles and recaps of Harper’s dating history. The renewed focus on their connection, prompted by Farahan’s memoir discussion, situates their story within ongoing public conversations about non‑monogamy, emotional hierarchy, and the diverse structures of relationships among LGBTQ+ people, while relying primarily on Farahan’s own recollections and previously documented on‑air comments from Harper for the factual record.

During the stream, Clavicular was dining with friend and collaborator Andrew Morales when Morales noticed three women nearby and pointed them out to the camera, commenting on their appearance and encouraging engagement. The women then approached the table, setting up an interaction that would quickly move from flirtatious banter into a broader conversation about who truly originated the aesthetics-focused “looksmaxxing” culture.

In the widely shared clip, the first transgender woman opens with the line “Why am I mogging you right now?” using “mogging,” a term in looksmaxxing spaces that means significantly outshining someone else in attractiveness. She then adds, “I’m dragqueenmaxxing right now, no shade,” linking her presentation to both drag culture and the looksmaxxing vocabulary that Clavicular’s audience knows well.

According to reporting and the footage, the woman asks whether Clavicular and Morales can tell she is transgender, and when they respond that they cannot, she emphasizes how effectively she is “mogging” him. Morales appears particularly focused on her body, admitting on stream that he was looking at her “ass,” while the group continues playful but pointed teasing about who looks better.

As the conversation unfolds, the three women reveal that they are all transgender, prompting visible surprise from both men and leading to questions about tucking, surgeries, and hormone use. One woman mentions doing “peptides” and being “on reta,” shorthand for the acne medication isotretinoin , aligning her regimen with some of the pharmaceutical tactics discussed in looksmaxxing communities.

The central moment of the exchange comes when one of the transgender women tells Clavicular, “You know that trans women are the OG looksmaxxers?” asserting a kind of historical and cultural primacy in extreme appearance modification. A second woman reinforces the point, saying, “We originated the program,” while another jokes that he is “copying” them, albeit with the caveat “no shade.”

In the clip, Clavicular responds that he has seen posts about transgender women using looksmaxxing language online before his rise, referring specifically to Reddit discussions in the early 2020s. However, he appears hesitant to fully concede that he is directly “copying” their approach, keeping the tone light while the women lean into their claim as originators.

Coverage of the incident notes that while looksmaxxing as a term and concept has strong links to incel and male‑dominated self‑improvement forums, transgender women have long relied on a combination of hormones, surgeries, dermatological care, styling, and fitness to align appearance with gender identity and social safety. This history underpins their assertion that transgender communities were “maxxing” their looks out of necessity, community knowledge‑sharing, and survival long before the practice was branded as a male aesthetics trend online.

Clavicular, whose legal name is reported as Braden Eric Peters, is a U.S.‑based streamer who gained rapid prominence in 2025 for content centered on “looksmaxxing” on platforms such as Kick and TikTok. Commentators and reporters have described his brand as controversial because it showcases and normalizes extreme tactics for altering appearance, including unconventional or risky practices.

Looksmaxxing, a term emerging from online forums in the 2010s and 2020s, refers to aggressively optimizing one’s physical appearance through a mix of grooming, fitness, medical interventions, and sometimes unsafe experimentation. Reporting on Clavicular’s content notes that some looksmaxxing communities discuss anabolic steroids, so‑called “bone smashing” to change facial structure, cosmetic surgery, and even alleged use of substances like methamphetamines for weight control, drawing criticism from health experts and online observers.

In this context, the three transgender women’s claim to being “OG looksmaxxers” functions as both a joke and a critique—suggesting that what is framed as a new male‑centric trend borrows heavily from longstanding trans and queer strategies around beauty, passing, and presentation. Their comments also implicitly highlight how trans communities often develop knowledge about hormones, skincare, body composition, and surgery years before mainstream influencers popularize similar regimes.

The clip has attracted more than 3 million views on X, where users are reposting and captioning the video, sometimes praising the women for “mogging” the streamer and other times debating whether the interaction was playful, confrontational, or both. One article notes that users “roasted” Clavicular for being outshone by the women on his own stream, framing the moment as a reversal of the usual hierarchy in looksmaxxing content, which often positions the streamer as an aspirational figure.

Comment sections and quote‑tweets include a mix of admiration for the women’s confidence, critical takes on looksmaxxing culture, and ongoing transphobic commentary that typically appears when trans visibility intersects with viral content. Some posts frame the women’s “OG looksmaxxers” line as a succinct summary of how trans women have historically navigated and reshaped beauty norms, while others focus primarily on the entertainment value of the exchange.

Media coverage has largely emphasized the humorous tone of the interaction while pointing to the deeper issues it surfaces about the commodification of beauty work pioneered in transgender and queer communities. Articles also note that, unlike some other controversies surrounding Clavicular’s streams—including prior incidents involving public confrontations and platform moderation decisions—the restaurant encounter itself remained non‑violent and appeared consensually playful among those at the table.

Analyses of the clip situate it within a broader debate over who “owns” certain beauty practices and terminologies and how marginalized communities often see their innovations rebranded without credit when they enter mainstream or male‑dominated spaces. In the case of looksmaxxing, journalists note that while incel forums and male self‑improvement spaces popularized the term, many of the underlying techniques—hormonal regimens, facial feminization or masculinization surgeries, strategic use of cosmetics, and body contouring—have long been refined in trans and drag communities.

The fact that the three women directly addressed this dynamic on camera, during a stream watched by many young men immersed in looksmaxxing culture, gives the moment a particular significance for advocates of trans visibility and recognition. For some viewers, their confident presence and technical fluency in similar routines to those promoted by Clavicular challenge assumptions that extreme aesthetic optimization is inherently a cisgender male pursuit.

At the same time, health professionals and commentators who have criticized looksmaxxing more broadly continue to raise concerns about how normalization of extreme regimens—whether in trans, cis, or mixed communities—can encourage unsafe practices, disordered eating, and distorted self‑image. Current coverage of the incident does not indicate that any of the parties in the restaurant promoted specific harmful techniques in this interaction, but it situates the playful dispute over who is “OG” within a subculture already under scrutiny for its most dangerous edges.

As of early April 2026, there is no indication that the three transgender women involved have chosen to publicly identify themselves or turn the moment into a formal campaign or ongoing content series, and they have not been widely named in major outlets. Coverage instead refers to them collectively as three attractive trans women who approached the table, highlighting their impact on the discourse despite their relative anonymity.

For Clavicular, the viral moment adds another layer to an already complex public image shaped by previous streaming controversies and debates over the ethics of monetizing extreme body modification content. While this particular clip centers more on banter than conflict, it arrives in the wake of earlier viral incidents on his streams, including altercations involving guests and criticism of his handling of heated situations, reinforcing scrutiny of how his content influences audiences.

Observers note that the “OG looksmaxxers” exchange may prove to be a reference point in future discussions about the intersections of trans identity, internet masculinity culture, and the commercialization of beauty labor that has historically been borne disproportionately by transgender women. Whether it remains a fleeting meme or evolves into a sustained conversation, the viral clip has already prompted many viewers to reconsider who has been doing the most intensive appearance work—and for how long—within and beyond the looksmaxxing world.

Writers William Harper, Joan Rater and Tony Phelan previously said the series would follow “three outsiders” trying to survive while hiding a secret that could “rock England to its foundations,” positioning the drama as emotional, sometimes funny and contemporary in tone despite its 16th‑century setting. The show was first commissioned in 2024, with production now scheduled to begin in summer 2026 and a planned broadcast in 2027, according to recent coverage.

In the last week, multiple outlets have reported that Majesty will portray Elizabeth I as a transgender woman and that ITV or the production team are seeking actors who identify as transgender women for the lead role. The series is said to draw inspiration from fringe historical theories, including the long‑debunked “Bisley Boy” legend, to imagine Elizabeth as someone whose gender identity or assigned sex at birth differs from the historical record.

LGBTQ+ outlet Attitude reports that a casting call has circulated inviting applications from young white transgender actors aged over 16 to play Elizabeth, described as a “young trans woman” who is “intelligent, compassionate, brave, likeable, witty and charming.” The same report states that the casting notice gives an application deadline of 16 July, with principal photography scheduled from 20 July 2026 through late October 2026, and asks applicants to send a short self‑tape and selfie to a casting email address.

At the same time, mainstream entertainment coverage stresses that ITV has not yet publicly confirmed the final casting or explicitly stated that Elizabeth will be definitively portrayed as transgender in‑story, even as anonymous sources and tabloid reports describe this as the creative direction. Entertainment Daily notes that “no casting has been announced,” while reporting that The Sun claims producers are “looking at casting actors who identify as transgender women” for the monarch.

Media coverage links Majesty to long‑standing conspiratorial narratives about Elizabeth I’s body and gender, which historians have repeatedly rejected as unfounded and often rooted in misogyny. Among these is the “Bisley Boy” story, a 19th‑century legend claiming that the young Elizabeth died in the village of Bisley and was secretly replaced by a boy to avoid Henry VIII’s wrath, a tale professional historians regard as fictional.

Digital Spy notes that experts interviewed by BBC History Extra and other outlets have described theories that Elizabeth was transgender or male‑bodied as “conspiracy” and have gone into detail in previous features to debunk them. These scholars argue that such stories often interpret Elizabeth’s unmarried status, political authority and refusal to produce an heir through sexist assumptions that powerful women must in some way be “unfeminine” or secretly male.

Coverage of Majesty repeatedly stresses that the show is positioned as a speculative retelling rather than a documentary or straight biopic, with ITV reportedly framing it as an “intriguing reimagining” using conspiracy theories as a narrative springboard. The Chosun Ilbo’s English‑language report, citing British press including the Telegraph, similarly characterises the drama as depicting Elizabeth explicitly as a transgender woman within a fictional frame.

News of the reported casting brief and transgender storyline has prompted intense reaction, with some outlets and commentators framing the project as part of wider “culture wars” over gender identity. GB News reports that critics on X have denounced the idea of “transing” Elizabeth I, with one user quoted as saying, “strong women can’t possibly just be women,” in protest at the premise.

Talk‑show segments amplified by GB News and TalkTV feature campaigners who oppose transgender‑inclusive casting, describing the concept as insulting to both women and historical memory. The Daily Sceptic quotes Fiona McAnena of the UK campaign group Sex Matters criticising the project as an “April Fool’s joke” and suggesting viewers “sick of gender ideology” may change the channel, highlighting how the show has become a focal point for longstanding political arguments about transgender inclusion.

On the other hand, LGBTQ+‑focused coverage emphasises that selecting a transgender actor for such a high‑profile role could represent a significant moment for representation, even within a speculative storyline. Attitude’s report highlights how the casting description foregrounds Elizabeth as complex, brave and charismatic, potentially offering a rare central role for a transgender performer in a mainstream British period drama.

Majesty arrives in the context of wider debates over how to portray historical figures through queer and transgender lenses, from theatre productions that imagine Joan of Arc as non‑binary to reinterpretations of ancient myths. Commentators quoted in the Daily Sceptic argue that some creative teams see transgender interpretations of famous women as “edgy,” while many viewers may experience them as part of a broader backlash against women’s rights, illustrating the contested terrain the series enters.

Digital Spy notes that experts urge audiences to distinguish clearly between historical evidence and conspiratorial narratives, even while acknowledging that speculative fiction can probe themes such as gender norms, power and surveillance. For transgender people and allies, the decision to cast a transgender actor as a monarch who has often been used as a canvas for gendered rumours could raise complex questions about whether such stories reinforce harmful myths or offer space for new, empowering readings of identity and resilience.

Across outlets, several points appear consistent: Majesty is an ITV‑backed six‑episode drama set in the Tudor court, developed by Harper, Rater and Phelan; it is designed as an alternate‑history series grounded in conspiracy theories about Elizabeth I; and production is expected to start in summer 2026. Reports also consistently state that officials at ITV have declined to comment on specific casting questions for Elizabeth I.

Other key elements remain less firmly established on the public record. Entertainment Daily underscores that, as of early April 2026, no actor has been formally announced in the role, and the broadcaster has not released a statement explicitly confirming Elizabeth will be depicted as transgender rather than, for example, as the subject of rumours within the story. Attitude’s detailed casting‑call report describes a leading role for a “young trans woman” playing Elizabeth and provides a specific timeline and contact details, but this document has not yet been independently reproduced by ITV’s own publicity channels, meaning aspects of it may still require direct confirmation.

As debate continues, news coverage suggests that Majesty is likely to remain a flashpoint in ongoing conversations about trans‑inclusive casting, historical storytelling and the responsibilities of large broadcasters in polarised cultural climates. The eventual casting announcement, once made, is expected to influence whether the project is most widely received as a landmark for transgender representation, a lightning rod for criticism, or some combination of both.

Pressed on whether those conversations meant he had formally joined the cast, Innanen declined to confirm any deal, reportedly gesturing that his lips were sealed and answering “Who knows?” when asked if he was booked for season two. In the same exchange, Entertainment Tonight’s video shows him laughing off direct questions about casting while reiterating his enthusiasm for the project and its creative team.

Innanen’s new comments build on months of social media and interview moments in which he has leaned into fan-driven casting campaigns positioning him as a dream addition to Heated Rivalry’s ensemble. Earlier in 2026, he posted a playful self‑taped message on Instagram directly addressing showrunner Jacob Tierney, saying he was “available for that second season, just putting that out there,” which was widely interpreted as a half‑joking, half‑serious audition.

Gay Times reported in January that Innanen had already acknowledged online fan casting, with the Adults star telling followers he had “seen the stuff on Twitter” and explicitly calling out Tierney by name to underline his interest, saying “Jacob Tierney, I’m available for season 2.” That earlier article noted that queer audiences and hockey-romance fans had repeatedly suggested Innanen for a future role, blending meme culture and genuine casting hopes in a way that reflects how fandom and industry now intersect.



In the April Entertainment Tonight segment, Innanen framed himself as an ideal fit for the series’ high-contact on-ice world, citing his real-life hockey background and ongoing training as evidence he could step into Heated Rivalry’s rink-ready universe. “I think I’m perfect for the show because I am down for anything. And I played hockey,” he said, before explaining that he has “got some mini sticks” and has been working on his stickhandling and hip mobility.

The video shows Innanen describing how he has been practicing off the ice while referencing star Hudson Williams’ physicality on the show as a model for the kind of movement he aims to emulate. Elite Daily noted that the actor’s emphasis on preparation, including joking about his “mini sticks,” has been well received by fans who appreciate both his comedic persona and the seriousness with which he appears to approach a potential role.

Heated Rivalry, adapted from Rachel Reid’s queer hockey romance novel of the same name, follows the slow-burn relationship between rivals-turned-lovers Shane Hollander and Ilya Rozanov, offering one of the most high-profile recent examples of LGBTQ+ representation in sports-centered prestige television. The series, which airs on Crave in Canada and is distributed in the United States via HBO Max, has been praised for its emotionally layered depiction of gay athletes navigating professional pressures, internalized expectations, and evolving intimacy.



Gay Times recently highlighted the show’s explicit, boundary-pushing sex scenes and the openness of lead actors Hudson Williams and Connor Storrie in discussing intimacy choreography and consent, noting they said they had “no boundaries” while filming within the agreed framework of the production. For many LGBTQ+ viewers, the series’ focus on desire, vulnerability, and athletic culture resonates as a rare combination of mainstream production values and unapologetically queer storytelling.

While Innanen’s casting remains uncertain, multiple outlets report that the second season of Heated Rivalry is firmly moving forward, with showrunner Jacob Tierney and the creative team currently at the writing stage. In an appearance on CBS Mornings with Gayle King, Tierney said that the writers’ room is active and that they are “getting ready to start shooting this summer,” emphasizing their desire to deliver new episodes “as soon as humanly possible.”

PinkNews and other outlets report that filming is expected to begin in August 2026, with a planned premiere in April 2027, giving fans a sense of the long-term timeline even as specific plot details are kept under wraps. The Editaires likewise notes that the intention is for season two to land in April 2027, with executive producer David Brady encouraging audiences to “enjoy the yearn” while they wait.



Despite widespread speculation and growing excitement about Innanen’s involvement, there has been no official confirmation from Crave, HBO Max, or the actor’s representatives that he will appear in season two. International Business Times reports that Entertainment Weekly reached out to both the network and Innanen’s team but did not receive any comment confirming his casting status.

Elite Daily similarly characterizes his involvement as “talks” rather than a done deal, stating that Innanen “has been in touch with the Heated Rivalry crew” but stopping short of describing any formal contract or role. In its reporting, International Business Times underscores that until an official announcement is made, “any claim about his involvement remains unverified,” even as fan theories continue to proliferate on social media platforms.

Innanen’s availability is a practical question alongside the creative speculation, as he is already attached to several projects aimed at overlapping audiences that include many LGBTQ+ viewers. Entertainment Tonight notes that season two of Adults, his FX on Hulu comedy series, is currently in the works, and that he is starring in Big Mistakes, the latest Netflix project from Canadian creator Dan Levy, which is set to stream from April 9.



The International Business Times article emphasizes that his Big Mistakes press tour has doubled as an unofficial platform for Heated Rivalry-related questions, suggesting that both entertainment journalists and fans view him as a natural fit within contemporary queer television landscapes. Elite Daily positions him as “one of the most prominent names put forth by the fandom” to join the series, further entrenching his association with the show even before any on-screen appearance.

Heated Rivalry’s growing cultural footprint sits within a broader wave of queer-inclusive sports narratives, and casting discussions around potential new characters—including the possibility of a role for Innanen—are unfolding in a community highly attuned to representation and power dynamics. Coverage in Gay Times and PinkNews has framed the series as part of an increasingly visible ecosystem of media in which gay and bisexual men, as well as other LGBTQ+ people, see their relationships and careers reflected with nuance.

In this environment, Innanen’s active engagement with fan fantasies—acknowledging online casting edits, posting directly to the showrunner, and now confirming actual conversations with the creative team—illustrates how performers can collaborate with queer fandoms without promising outcomes that remain beyond their sole control. International Business Times notes that while such hints fuel speculation, they also highlight the distinction between informal dialogue and contractual reality, especially in an industry where scheduling, budgeting, and narrative planning all shape casting decisions.



As of early April 2026, the confirmed facts are that Heated Rivalry season two is in active development, with writing underway and filming planned to start in August 2026 ahead of a targeted April 2027 release window, and that Jack Innanen has “had some conversations” with members of the show’s team about a possible role. What remains unconfirmed is any official casting announcement regarding Innanen or other new performers, as networks and representatives have declined to comment on whether negotiations have progressed to signed agreements.

For fans of LGBTQ+ storytelling, the intersection of these developments—concrete production timelines, evolving cast possibilities, and a creator team committed to continuing Shane and Ilya’s story—signals that Heated Rivalry is poised to maintain its visibility in queer culture for at least another television season. Until more concrete casting news arrives, however, Innanen’s exact role in that future remains an open question, framed by his own confirmed conversations and the hopes of a vocal, engaged queer fanbase.

According to multiple outlets citing court documents, Jenner filed the creditor’s claim in California probate proceedings in late 2025, several months after Hutchins’s death in July 2025. Reports state that in March 2026, representatives for Hutchins’s estate moved to allow or approve the full amount of Jenner’s claim, clearing the way for the debt to be repaid in full.

Some reports indicate that the estate has already reimbursed Jenner, while others describe the March 2026 action as a formal allowance of the claim in probate. Where the timing of final payment is not consistently documented, it remains safer to state only that the estate approved or moved to approve the full amount of Jenner’s demand.

Legal documents described in multiple media reports say that the largest portion of the alleged debt comes from credit card charges totaling more than $273,000. These charges are said to include purchases from online marketplaces and retailers such as 1stdibs, Shopify, eBay, Restoration Hardware, and other luxury or home goods sellers.

One breakdown reported by entertainment outlets cites $273,453.49 in credit card spending, $15,913.55 in debit card purchases, and $9,890.65 in interest accrued on the credit balance. Additional reporting highlights alleged cash advances of about $7,150 taken out between February and June 2025, which Jenner says were expected to be repaid.

On top of the consumer spending and advances, Jenner’s claim also lists approximately $133,000 in shared legal fees related to lawyers retained in a separate legal matter. According to the filings as relayed in media coverage, the two agreed to split these legal costs, with Jenner allegedly paying the full fees upfront on the understanding that Hutchins would reimburse her later.

Documents summarized in some reports note that Hutchins is said to have repaid $75,000 toward these legal costs before her death, leaving a remaining balance that was rolled into the final claim amount. Reports also emphasize that Hutchins had authorized access to Jenner’s cards as part of her professional role, but that personal expenses were supposed to be reimbursed rather than left outstanding.

Sophia Hutchins, a transgender woman who became known to the public through her professional and personal association with Caitlyn Jenner, worked closely with Jenner and later served as her manager. Their collaboration extended across business ventures, media appearances, and day‑to‑day management, making Hutchins a prominent figure within entertainment coverage of Jenner’s post‑transition public life.

Coverage of the claim notes that the two were described in media reports as close friends as well as professional partners, which made the emergence of a large financial dispute after Hutchins’s death particularly striking for observers. Articles also reference Jenner expressing grief and devastation over Hutchins’s death in past interviews, even as the estate proceedings continued in the background.

For LGBTQ+ audiences and allies, the story highlights how transgender women and transgender men who operate in the public eye often have their personal, financial, and professional relationships scrutinized in ways that can overshadow their broader contributions and identities. Media coverage of the dispute has primarily focused on the financial mechanics of the claim rather than on speculation about the nature of the pair’s relationship, in line with person‑first, dignity‑respecting descriptions of both women.

Hutchins died at age 29 on 2 July 2025, in what authorities described as a tragic ATV crash near Jenner’s home in Malibu, California. Reports say her vehicle went off the road, plunging several hundred feet into a ravine, and that she died from multiple blunt‑force injuries sustained in the crash, according to details attributed to official records.

Accounts differ slightly on the exact timing of Jenner’s filing, with some outlets stating the creditor’s claim was submitted on 19 September 2025, and others describing the filing as occurring in November 2025, but all agree that it came within months of Hutchins’s death. In either case, the claim then moved through California’s probate system and was ultimately allowed by the estate in March 2026, according to probate filings cited by entertainment and news outlets.

Some coverage suggests that the estate not only approved but has already paid the full amount of Jenner’s claim, while other reporting simply states that the claim “was allowed” or “approved,” without explicitly confirming the date of final disbursement. In the absence of unified court‑record access across outlets, the most consistently verifiable point is that probate documents acknowledge Jenner’s claim in full and that the estate has agreed to satisfy it.

Public reaction documented in mainstream outlets has so far been relatively muted, with most coverage focusing on the legal and financial dimensions rather than publishing extensive commentary from friends, family, or LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations. Articles generally present the creditor claim as a matter of probate and contract obligations, noting the personal history between Jenner and Hutchins while avoiding unverified speculation about their private conversations or motivations.

Within LGBTQ+‑focused media, the story sits at the intersection of celebrity, grief, and financial accountability, bringing attention to how transgender women in public life can be simultaneously remembered for their work and scrutinized through posthumous legal disputes. At the same time, the careful use of person‑first language and focus on verifiable financial records in much of the reporting reflects an effort to cover the case without resorting to sensationalism about either woman’s transgender identity.

For now, available documentation shows that Caitlyn Jenner has pursued, and the estate has agreed to honor, a six‑figure creditor’s claim arising from the complex overlap of friendship, professional management, and shared legal exposure. As probate proceedings and public records continue to clarify the financial closure of Hutchins’s estate, coverage remains focused on the specific, documented obligations between the two women rather than on conjecture about their private relationship.