Month: February 2023
Mozilla leads Mastodon app Mammoth’s pre-seed funding
Mammoth, a recently launched Mastodon app that’s trying to make it easier on users who want to join the decentralized social web, has a notable financial backer. The company confirmed that its leading pre-seed investor is Mozilla, a proponent of the open web, which invested in the company’s first general round alongside others, including Long
Mozilla leads Mastodon app Mammoth’s pre-seed funding by Sarah Perez originally published on TechCrunch
Mammoth, a recently launched Mastodon app that’s trying to make it easier on users who want to join the decentralized social web, has a notable financial backer. The company confirmed that its leading pre-seed investor is Mozilla, a proponent of the open web, which invested in the company’s first general round alongside others, including Long Journey Ventures and Salesforce’s Marc Benioff.
The company has a unique founding story as well. The app was originally built by iOS developer Shihab Mehboob, the creator behind a number of apps, including the whimsical music app Vinyls and the Twitter client Aviary 2. The latter was impacted by Elon Musk’s Twitter API changes, which put an end to third-party Twitter clients, prompting Mehboob to turn his attention to the decentralized and open source Twitter alternative Mastodon.
Mammoth was the result of those efforts, but it has since been acquired by the company that’s now running the project, led by principal developer Bart Decrem.
Now, the team at Mammoth is just three full-time employees and a handful of contractors. And while the total investment round is undisclosed, Decrem characterized the pre-seed as a small amount — “a million or two is the general round” at this stage, he says.
The new Mammoth founder’s background is both in open source and consumer apps, in addition to entrepreneurship.
In ’99, Decrem worked on a Linux startup called Eazel which aimed to make Linux easier to use. While others on that project later ended up building Safari and other technology at Apple, Decrem found himself at the Mozilla Foundation ahead of the Firefox 1.0 launch. There, he ran marketing and business affairs and worked on branding and the international launch. He was also a part of the search monetization discussions, including the initial Google search deal.
He later went on to more entrepreneurial efforts including the VC-backed social web browser Flock (which received its fair share of TechCrunch coverage back in the day), followed by an early smartphone game maker Tapulous, makers of Tap Tap Revenge. The latter landed him at Disney following an acquisition, as the head of the mobile games group, which put out products like the “Where’s My Water” series and some “Temple Run” titles.
Some of these prior efforts also involved the same approach of finding and partnering with existing developers, Decrem notes, including the original Tap Tap Revenge developer. Later at Disney, he found a developer in QA who had built a No. 1 game on the App Store, but not under Disney’s branding. Decrem brought the developer into his group and gave him the space to create what became “Where’s My Water?,” a title that’s seen a billion-some downloads by now.
“The way I like to do things is you find somebody special and then get out of the way and support their vision,” Decrem explains. “I saw that spark in [Mammoth founder] Shihab [Mehboob], and that’s why we’re working together.”
The two were teamed up as Decrem was running a small lab that had been working on decentralization projects, including a crypto app called KyrptoSign for legal documents on the blockchain, as well as an art collective. But when Mastodon came along, the team pivoted, acquired Mammoth and now it’s the group’s only focus.
For Decrem, the appeal of Mastodon was not just that it’s an open source Twitter clone — something he said only felt “mildly interesting” — but how it was a place where communities were forming.
“It reminded me of Firefox 0.7, which is what I got involved in Mozilla — the Firefox launch,” Decrem says. “I was like, there’s just people nerding out here, doing cool shit…that feels exciting and interesting and everything I like about the internet — communities building and organizing themselves.”
“This thing is half microblogging, but half people organizing communities — like Reddit, or maybe like Discord,” he continues. “This is like a digitally native social system. And it’s decentralized. That’s freaking cool.”
Other companies seem to think it’s cool too. Today, Flipboard announced it was joining the decentralized social web. Medium already has, and Tumblr said it would.
The challenge, of course, for Mammoth, will be not just making the decentralized social web more appealing to more newcomers but also successfully maintaining and generating revenue from the app itself. Decrem says the company plans to have a subscription plan available in a few months that will range from $3-5 per month, at least half of which will likely go toward its server bills.
But revenue is not the immediate focus — growing its user base comes first. As for now, Mammoth has at least a year’s worth of funding thanks to Mozilla’s backing, Decrem says. And they’re willing to be patient, he notes.
Mozilla leads Mastodon app Mammoth’s pre-seed funding by Sarah Perez originally published on TechCrunch
2023 BetterHelp Online Therapy Review – CNET
We go over the cost, special features and who’s it right for.
We go over the cost, special features and who’s it right for.
2023 could be the biggest ever year for cybercrime
Hackers are shifting strategies and opting for a stealthier approach, researchers claim.
2023 could very well be the biggest year ever for cybercriminals, new figures have claimed.
According to SonicWall’s latest figures, cybercrime is on the rise across the board, but trends are slowly shifting which is something IT security teams should keep in mind. More precisely, hackers are opting for a “slow and low” approach, keeping stealthy while trying to achieve financially-motivated goals.
That being said, the company found that the total malware volume was up 2% in 2022, after three straight years of decline.
Ransomware up in volume
Overall, the entire European continent saw increased levels of malware (10%+), with Ukraine suffering a record 25.6 million attempts. Certain countries, such as the UK (-13%) and Germany (-28%) fared quite well last year. Across the pond, the U.S. experienced 9% lower malware volume, compared to 2021.
Ransomware, arguably one of the most popular attack vectors out there, saw a global decline of 21%, but total volume that surpassed that of 2017, 2018, 2019, and 202. In particular, total ransomware in Q4 (154.9 million) was the highest since Q3 2021.
But trends seem to be shifting towards IoT malware, whose global volume rose by 87% in 2022, totaling 112 million hits last year. Cryptojacking – hijacking an endpoint to mine cryptocurrency – is yet to show signs of abating, as well. It rose 43% globally last year, which is the most SonicWall threat researchers recorded in a single year. The retail and financial industries were hit the heaviest, with 2810% and 352% increases, respectively.
“The past year reinforced the need for cybersecurity in every industry and every facet of business, as threat actors targeted anything and everything, from education to retail to finance,” said SonicWall President and CEO Bob VanKirk. “While organizations face an increasing number of real-world obstacles with macroeconomic pressures and continued geopolitical strife, threat actors are shifting attack strategies at an alarming rate.”
Keep your devices safe with the best endpoint protection
The White House’s $39 billion chip-making giveaway starts today
When President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law in 2022, it put $52 billion in tax credits and funding on the table to help bolster the semiconductor industry in the US, with $39 billion specifically earmarked for semiconductor manufacturing incentives. Now, we’re starting to see how that initiative is going to play out: The Biden Administration has officially launched the first CHIPS for America funding opportunity, laying out the application process for “projects to construct, expand or modernize commercial facilities for the production of leading-edge, current-generation and mature-node semiconductors.”
The “first” in first funding opportunity is the key word here: At the start, CHIPS for America is specifically looking to fund projects that align with the program’s “vision for success” that seeks to have a number of leading-edge logic fabrication facilities and DRAM chip manufacturers by the end of the decade, as well as hitting specific production capacity goals for “current-generation and mature-node” semiconductors. The program plans to offer more funding opportunities for R&D and manufacturing equipment facilities at a later date. Applications for those programs won’t launch until late Spring and Fall of 2023, but the CHIPS Program Office is open to receiving statements of interest from hopeful applicants.
The program also includes strict guardrails for how funding is used. Applicants who are awarded CHIPS funding will be prohibited from using the payments for stock buybacks or to pay out dividends, and payments will be tied to meeting specific milestones. It’ll be awhile before the first recipients of CHIPS funding are announced, but hopeful projects can begin submitting applications on March 31, 2023. Want all the details? Check out the full CHIPS for America announcement right here.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-white-houses-39-billion-chip-making-giveaway-starts-today-210717470.html?src=rss
When President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law in 2022, it put $52 billion in tax credits and funding on the table to help bolster the semiconductor industry in the US, with $39 billion specifically earmarked for semiconductor manufacturing incentives. Now, we’re starting to see how that initiative is going to play out: The Biden Administration has officially launched the first CHIPS for America funding opportunity, laying out the application process for “projects to construct, expand or modernize commercial facilities for the production of leading-edge, current-generation and mature-node semiconductors.”
The “first” in first funding opportunity is the key word here: At the start, CHIPS for America is specifically looking to fund projects that align with the program’s “vision for success” that seeks to have a number of leading-edge logic fabrication facilities and DRAM chip manufacturers by the end of the decade, as well as hitting specific production capacity goals for “current-generation and mature-node” semiconductors. The program plans to offer more funding opportunities for R&D and manufacturing equipment facilities at a later date. Applications for those programs won’t launch until late Spring and Fall of 2023, but the CHIPS Program Office is open to receiving statements of interest from hopeful applicants.
The program also includes strict guardrails for how funding is used. Applicants who are awarded CHIPS funding will be prohibited from using the payments for stock buybacks or to pay out dividends, and payments will be tied to meeting specific milestones. It’ll be awhile before the first recipients of CHIPS funding are announced, but hopeful projects can begin submitting applications on March 31, 2023. Want all the details? Check out the full CHIPS for America announcement right here.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-white-houses-39-billion-chip-making-giveaway-starts-today-210717470.html?src=rss
Why climate credits for solar geoengineering are a bad idea
Views of the sunset and stormy skies on September 9th, 2021 in La Paz, Mexico. | Photo: Alfredo Martinez/Getty Images
Buyer beware: there’s a dubious new kind of climate credit for sale.
Traditional carbon offset credits, say, for planting trees or protecting forests, have a record of failing to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Now, a startup is selling credits for its attempts to manipulate the planet’s ability to reflect sunlight, a controversial response to climate change called solar geoengineering.
A group of prominent scientists published a letter yesterday that warns that this kind of climate intervention is nowhere near ready to be commercially deployed and probably never should be. A big name on the letter is James Hansen, a former NASA scientist who’s now at Columbia University and is famous for sounding the alarm on climate change in a 1988 testimony to Congress.
This kind of climate intervention is nowhere near ready to be commercially deployed and probably never should be
The letter advocates for more research into the possible impact of solar geoengineering, which could minimize some of the dangers brought on by climate change or perhaps cause new problems. Given that uncertainty, the scientists stop short of actually endorsing solar geoengineering as a tactic for fighting climate change. They don’t think it should be implemented without a “comprehensive, international assessment” of its potential effects and “international decision-making” on how to use such technologies.
The statement comes after embattled solar geoengineering startup Make Sunsets attempted to release reflective particles into the atmosphere from Reno, Nevada, this month and from Baja California, Mexico, last year. The idea is to mimic the way debris from volcanic eruptions reflects solar radiation, which has temporarily cooled the planet in the past. What this actually looks like is a couple of co-founders lighting up fungicide on a grill, using the resulting gas to fill up weather balloons with reflective sulfur dioxide particles, and then releasing the balloons.
Make Sunsets sells “cooling credits” at $10 per gram of sulfur dioxide it releases. Each gram is supposed to offset “the warming effect of 1 ton of carbon dioxide for 1 year.” But the company isn’t having any measurable impact on the climate. To start, it’s released too little sulfur dioxide to make a difference against the billions of tons of pollution released each year by burning fossil fuels. And Make Sunsets hasn’t been able to collect concrete altitude data on the five balloons it’s launched so far, so it doesn’t know whether the reflective particles it released even made it to the stratosphere where they’re supposed to do their job.
Make Sunsets’ balloon launches have mostly succeeded in pissing people off who actually want to see more legitimate research into geoengineering. “There can be no room for selling snake oil,” says a February 13th press release from the nonprofit SilverLining that supports geoengineering research. “SilverLining strongly condemns Make Sunsets’ rogue releases of material into the atmosphere and its efforts to market fraudulent ‘cooling credits’.”
“There can be no room for selling snake oil.”
Mexico said it would bar solar geoengineering experiments following Make Sunsets’ balloon launches there. The move was meant to protect nearby communities and the environment, according to Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources. Releasing a lot of sulfur dioxide has the potential to trigger acid rain, irritate people’s lungs, and even worsen the Antarctic ozone hole. There are still too many unknowns when it comes to potential side effects.
Even if scientists gain a better understanding of what impact solar geoengineering might have and decide that the benefits outweigh the risks, it’s still too risky to monetize. “It likely will never be an appropriate candidate for an open market system of credits and independent actors,” the letter published yesterday says, because it “does not address the cause of climate change.”
What’s causing climate change, of course, is greenhouse gas pollution from all of our fossil-fueled power plants, factories, and gas-guzzling vehicles. Humanity’s failure to slash that pollution is what got us into the conundrum that has some scientists considering a move as drastic as geoengineering now. Carbon credits, whether they’re from solar geoengineering or more traditional tree planting schemes, don’t do anything to prevent that pollution.
Sure, trees can take in and store planet-heating carbon dioxide. But when they die, burn, or are cut down, they release it again. It’s not a permanent fix. Neither is the kind of solar geoengineering Make Sunsets is attempting. Sulfur dioxide doesn’t linger very long in the atmosphere, which is why the startup’s $10 credit is only supposed to represent a year’s worth of cooling.
So if you want to make an impact this way, you have to develop a habit. If it’s ever effective at scale, this kind of climate intervention becomes addictive. Once you stop injecting reflective particles into the atmosphere, the world starts to heat up again — fast. Even volcanic eruptions that spewed enough sulfur dioxide to affect global temperatures have had a short-lived impact. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo cooled Earth’s surface for about two years.
The world is already struggling to kick its fossil fuel habit. Credit can be addictive, too. And if we’re not careful, we could squander what little time we have left to take real action on the climate crisis before it grows much worse.
“I wholeheartedly agree with most of this letter: more research is desperately needed,” Make Sunsets founder Luke Iseman says in an email to The Verge. “The question to me is what we do in the face of uncertainty. Do we take action we know will create cooling and hence save lives, or do we wait for some international consensus that may never come?”
There’s no evidence to back Iseman’s claims about geoengineering saving lives. But there’s plenty of evidence that switching to clean energy can.
Views of the sunset and stormy skies on September 9th, 2021 in La Paz, Mexico. | Photo: Alfredo Martinez/Getty Images
Buyer beware: there’s a dubious new kind of climate credit for sale.
Traditional carbon offset credits, say, for planting trees or protecting forests, have a record of failing to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Now, a startup is selling credits for its attempts to manipulate the planet’s ability to reflect sunlight, a controversial response to climate change called solar geoengineering.
A group of prominent scientists published a letter yesterday that warns that this kind of climate intervention is nowhere near ready to be commercially deployed and probably never should be. A big name on the letter is James Hansen, a former NASA scientist who’s now at Columbia University and is famous for sounding the alarm on climate change in a 1988 testimony to Congress.
The letter advocates for more research into the possible impact of solar geoengineering, which could minimize some of the dangers brought on by climate change or perhaps cause new problems. Given that uncertainty, the scientists stop short of actually endorsing solar geoengineering as a tactic for fighting climate change. They don’t think it should be implemented without a “comprehensive, international assessment” of its potential effects and “international decision-making” on how to use such technologies.
The statement comes after embattled solar geoengineering startup Make Sunsets attempted to release reflective particles into the atmosphere from Reno, Nevada, this month and from Baja California, Mexico, last year. The idea is to mimic the way debris from volcanic eruptions reflects solar radiation, which has temporarily cooled the planet in the past. What this actually looks like is a couple of co-founders lighting up fungicide on a grill, using the resulting gas to fill up weather balloons with reflective sulfur dioxide particles, and then releasing the balloons.
Make Sunsets sells “cooling credits” at $10 per gram of sulfur dioxide it releases. Each gram is supposed to offset “the warming effect of 1 ton of carbon dioxide for 1 year.” But the company isn’t having any measurable impact on the climate. To start, it’s released too little sulfur dioxide to make a difference against the billions of tons of pollution released each year by burning fossil fuels. And Make Sunsets hasn’t been able to collect concrete altitude data on the five balloons it’s launched so far, so it doesn’t know whether the reflective particles it released even made it to the stratosphere where they’re supposed to do their job.
Make Sunsets’ balloon launches have mostly succeeded in pissing people off who actually want to see more legitimate research into geoengineering. “There can be no room for selling snake oil,” says a February 13th press release from the nonprofit SilverLining that supports geoengineering research. “SilverLining strongly condemns Make Sunsets’ rogue releases of material into the atmosphere and its efforts to market fraudulent ‘cooling credits’.”
Mexico said it would bar solar geoengineering experiments following Make Sunsets’ balloon launches there. The move was meant to protect nearby communities and the environment, according to Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources. Releasing a lot of sulfur dioxide has the potential to trigger acid rain, irritate people’s lungs, and even worsen the Antarctic ozone hole. There are still too many unknowns when it comes to potential side effects.
Even if scientists gain a better understanding of what impact solar geoengineering might have and decide that the benefits outweigh the risks, it’s still too risky to monetize. “It likely will never be an appropriate candidate for an open market system of credits and independent actors,” the letter published yesterday says, because it “does not address the cause of climate change.”
What’s causing climate change, of course, is greenhouse gas pollution from all of our fossil-fueled power plants, factories, and gas-guzzling vehicles. Humanity’s failure to slash that pollution is what got us into the conundrum that has some scientists considering a move as drastic as geoengineering now. Carbon credits, whether they’re from solar geoengineering or more traditional tree planting schemes, don’t do anything to prevent that pollution.
Sure, trees can take in and store planet-heating carbon dioxide. But when they die, burn, or are cut down, they release it again. It’s not a permanent fix. Neither is the kind of solar geoengineering Make Sunsets is attempting. Sulfur dioxide doesn’t linger very long in the atmosphere, which is why the startup’s $10 credit is only supposed to represent a year’s worth of cooling.
So if you want to make an impact this way, you have to develop a habit. If it’s ever effective at scale, this kind of climate intervention becomes addictive. Once you stop injecting reflective particles into the atmosphere, the world starts to heat up again — fast. Even volcanic eruptions that spewed enough sulfur dioxide to affect global temperatures have had a short-lived impact. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo cooled Earth’s surface for about two years.
The world is already struggling to kick its fossil fuel habit. Credit can be addictive, too. And if we’re not careful, we could squander what little time we have left to take real action on the climate crisis before it grows much worse.
“I wholeheartedly agree with most of this letter: more research is desperately needed,” Make Sunsets founder Luke Iseman says in an email to The Verge. “The question to me is what we do in the face of uncertainty. Do we take action we know will create cooling and hence save lives, or do we wait for some international consensus that may never come?”
There’s no evidence to back Iseman’s claims about geoengineering saving lives. But there’s plenty of evidence that switching to clean energy can.
OpenAI Is Now Everything It Promised Not To Be: Corporate, Closed-Source, and For-Profit
OpenAI is today unrecognizable, with multi-billion-dollar deals and corporate partnerships. From a report: OpenAI was founded in 2015 as a nonprofit research organization by Altman, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, among other tech leaders. In its founding statement, the company declared its commitment to research “to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.” The blog stated that “since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact,” and that all researchers would be encouraged to share “papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world.”
Now, eight years later, we are faced with a company that is neither transparent nor driven by positive human impact, but instead, as many critics including co-founder Musk have argued, is powered by speed and profit. And this company is unleashing technology that, while flawed, is still poised to increase some elements of workplace automation at the expense of human employees. Google, for example, has highlighted the efficiency gains from AI that autocompletes code, as it lays off thousands of workers. When OpenAI first began, it was envisioned as doing basic AI research in an open way, with undetermined ends. Co-founder Greg Bockman told The New Yorker, “Our goal right now…is to do the best thing there is to do. It’s a little vague.” This resulted in a shift in direction in 2018 when the company looked to capital resources for some direction. “Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. We anticipate needing to marshal substantial resources to fulfill our mission,” the company wrote in an updated charter in 2018. By March 2019, OpenAI shed its non-profit status and set up a “capped profit” sector, in which the company could now receive investments and would provide investors with profit capped at 100 times their investment.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
OpenAI is today unrecognizable, with multi-billion-dollar deals and corporate partnerships. From a report: OpenAI was founded in 2015 as a nonprofit research organization by Altman, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, among other tech leaders. In its founding statement, the company declared its commitment to research “to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.” The blog stated that “since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact,” and that all researchers would be encouraged to share “papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world.”
Now, eight years later, we are faced with a company that is neither transparent nor driven by positive human impact, but instead, as many critics including co-founder Musk have argued, is powered by speed and profit. And this company is unleashing technology that, while flawed, is still poised to increase some elements of workplace automation at the expense of human employees. Google, for example, has highlighted the efficiency gains from AI that autocompletes code, as it lays off thousands of workers. When OpenAI first began, it was envisioned as doing basic AI research in an open way, with undetermined ends. Co-founder Greg Bockman told The New Yorker, “Our goal right now…is to do the best thing there is to do. It’s a little vague.” This resulted in a shift in direction in 2018 when the company looked to capital resources for some direction. “Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. We anticipate needing to marshal substantial resources to fulfill our mission,” the company wrote in an updated charter in 2018. By March 2019, OpenAI shed its non-profit status and set up a “capped profit” sector, in which the company could now receive investments and would provide investors with profit capped at 100 times their investment.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
How Ozempic and Wegovy Are Changing the Weight-Loss Drug Market – CNET
A new wave of diet pills started out as a drug for diabetes.
A new wave of diet pills started out as a drug for diabetes.
If ‘Peter Pan & Wendy’s trailer got you hooked, here’s all you need to know about where to watch the film
What: Peter Pan & Wendy
Where to watch: Disney+
Premiere date: April 28, 2023
The boy who refuses to grow up is returning to our screens.
The latest live-action adaptation of Peter Pan is finally here, and it just might be better than Hook. Ready to get on a boat to Neverland and see if Peter Pan & Wendy will triumphantly seal the deal for the best Peter-flick? Here’s everything you need to know.
Where can I watch Peter Pan & Wendy?
Peter Pan & Wendy is exclusively streaming on Disney+ starting April 28.
What is Peter Pan & Wendy about?
Taking a live-action spin on the classic tale, Peter Pan & Wendy follows the Darling children as they make their way to Neverland one sprinkle of pixie dust at a time. From mermaids to pirates, Neverland is full of magic and adventure.
SEE ALSO:
All of Disney’s ‘live-action’ adaptations, ranked from worst to best
The film’s first trailer promises the return of all your favorite characters, with some gorgeous scenery and a reimagined Neverland like you’ve never seen it before.
Who’s starring in the film?
The star-studded cast includes Jude Law as Captain Hook, Yara Shahidi as Tinker Bell, and Jim Gaffigan as Mr. Smee. Taking up the baton of Peter is Alexander Moloney, with Ever Anderson playing his Wendy.
The film also stars Alyssa Wapanatâhk as Tiger Lily, Joshua Pickering as John Darling, and Alan Tudyk and Molly Parker as Mr. and Mrs. Darling.
To stream Peter Pan & Wendy, subscribe to Disney+ for just $6.99/month in a limited time offer.
Opens in a new tab
Credit: Disney+
‘Peter Pan & Wendy’
(opens in a new tab)
Disney+
Watch here.
(opens in a new tab)
What: Peter Pan & Wendy
Where to watch: Disney+
Premiere date: April 28, 2023
The boy who refuses to grow up is returning to our screens.
The latest live-action adaptation of Peter Pan is finally here, and it just might be better than Hook. Ready to get on a boat to Neverland and see if Peter Pan & Wendy will triumphantly seal the deal for the best Peter-flick? Here’s everything you need to know.
Where can I watch Peter Pan & Wendy?
Peter Pan & Wendy is exclusively streaming on Disney+ starting April 28.
What is Peter Pan & Wendy about?
Taking a live-action spin on the classic tale, Peter Pan & Wendy follows the Darling children as they make their way to Neverland one sprinkle of pixie dust at a time. From mermaids to pirates, Neverland is full of magic and adventure.
The film’s first trailer promises the return of all your favorite characters, with some gorgeous scenery and a reimagined Neverland like you’ve never seen it before.
Who’s starring in the film?
The star-studded cast includes Jude Law as Captain Hook, Yara Shahidi as Tinker Bell, and Jim Gaffigan as Mr. Smee. Taking up the baton of Peter is Alexander Moloney, with Ever Anderson playing his Wendy.
The film also stars Alyssa Wapanatâhk as Tiger Lily, Joshua Pickering as John Darling, and Alan Tudyk and Molly Parker as Mr. and Mrs. Darling.
To stream Peter Pan & Wendy, subscribe to Disney+ for just $6.99/month in a limited time offer.
Opens in a new tab