Entertainment
Controversial Web Series From South Park Creators Never Had A Chance Streaming For Free
By Robert Scucci
| Updated
There’s one ill-fated series from South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone that’s so vile and disturbing that the project was scrapped before it ever got off the ground. In the early 2000s internet boom, Princess, a series of animated shorts from the perspective of an innocent Lhasa Apso dog, was picked up and financed by Shockwave, the sister-site to Macromedia Flash. Originally setting out to produce 39 three-to-five minute shorts, Parker and Stone, who were given complete creative and artistic control over Princess, produced two episodes that can only be found on the Internet Archive and YouTube, as they never heard back from Shockwave after submitting their proof of concept.
You’ll find out why in a second.
The Princess Premise
Across about nine minutes of runtime between two short episodes (“Princess Hears a Strange Noise,” and “Princess Meets Officer Friendly”), Princess features a married couple going at it in the bedroom, the resulting accidental (and horrifically messy) decapitation of the wife, a visit from a police officer investigating the all-too-common Viagra-induced incident, a necrophiliac posing as a coroner so he could “have some time alone” with the body, and the couple’s son walking in on the “coroner” in the middle of said alone time, which is all seen from the perspective of the titular dog who lives with the family.
What’s so misleading, and what causes so much shock (aside from the incidents I just spelled out), is how Princess opens with the sweetest, most misleading intro music, gleefully singing “Who’s that fluffy bundle of love? It’s Princess!” After the intro, however, you’ll realize what you’re getting into when the first scene in “Princess Hears a Strange Noise” uncomfortably kicks off.
Doomed From The Start
Shortly after Parker and Stone submitted their first two episodes of Princess to the heads of Shockwave, the executives were so disgusted that they immediately shelved the project, hoping that it would never see the light of day. Originally commissioned in 1999 and produced in 2001, nobody knew that Princess existed, which is probably for the better. It wasn’t until 2004, when the now defunct Trio.TV put out a documentary called Shocked, that Princess was unleashed online to the public.
Though only two episodes of Princess were completed, a third episode, entitled “Princess Finds a Red Balloon” was in the works but abandoned after the project was scrapped by Shockwave indefinitely. At the time, Parker and Stone encouraged fans of the series who were skilled with Macromedia Flash to pick up the story where they left off, but no such episodes ever materialized, at least to my knowledge.
Considering that Macromedia stopped developing Flash in 2005, and Adobe stopped supporting the Flash player in 2020, it’s pretty safe to say that we’ll never see new episodes of Princess.
Probably For The Better
While I’ve always admired Trey Parker and Matt Stone for pushing the envelope with their cutting satire and social commentary, I’ve got to admit that it’s probably a good thing that Princess never had a chance to become a full online series. Given how South Park was just starting to become a cultural phenomenon, I could only imagine how badly a 39-episode run of one of the most vulgar cartoons I’ve ever seen would have damaged their careers this early on if they got hit with lawsuits that would take attention away from their flagship series.
Personally, I think this series was a bit tasteless for Parker and Stone, but I admire how audaciously they pursued the notion of “having complete creative control” and did literally whatever the hell they wanted just to see how far off the deep end they could actually go. By the same token, Princess isn’t smart, nor does it have any underlying message that lets you see its vulgarity in a more profound light; it’s simply vulgar for the sake of being vulgar.
But if you want to see Princess for yourself in all of its perverse and explicit glory, you can find the two existing episodes floating around on YouTube, as well as the Internet Archive if you’re brave enough.
Entertainment
NYT Strands hints, answers for March 1, 2026
Today’s NYT Strands hints are easy if you’re not on. your best behavior.
Strands, the New York Times‘ elevated word-search game, requires the player to perform a twist on the classic word search. Words can be made from linked letters — up, down, left, right, or diagonal, but words can also change direction, resulting in quirky shapes and patterns. Every single letter in the grid will be part of an answer. There’s always a theme linking every solution, along with the “spangram,” a special, word or phrase that sums up that day’s theme, and spans the entire grid horizontally or vertically.
By providing an opaque hint and not providing the word list, Strands creates a brain-teasing game that takes a little longer to play than its other games, like Wordle and Connections.
If you’re feeling stuck or just don’t have 10 or more minutes to figure out today’s puzzle, we’ve got all the NYT Strands hints for today’s puzzle you need to progress at your preferred pace.
NYT Strands hint for today’s theme: Dressing down
The words are related to discipline.
Mashable Top Stories
Today’s NYT Strands theme plainly explained
These words describe ways to chastise.
NYT Strands spangram hint: Is it vertical or horizontal?
Today’s NYT Strands spangram is vertical.
NYT Strands spangram answer today
Today’s spangram is The Riot Act.
NYT Strands word list for March 1
-
Braidup
-
The Riot Act
-
Scold
-
Castigate
-
Reprimand
-
Admonish
Looking for other daily online games? Mashable’s Games page has more hints, and if you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now!
Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.
Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Strands.
Entertainment
New Scream Movie Is Only For Diehard Fans
By Chris Snellgrove
| Published
In 1996, iconic director Wes Craven rejuvenated the slasher genre with Scream, a film that served as the perfect deconstruction of horror movies. Scream was ahead of its time in many ways, predicting modern phenomena like true crime obsession and paradoxical relationships. At the same time, it worked as a perfect scary movie, one that transformed the entire genre for the better.
However, Scream was delivering diminishing returns even before Wes Craven died, and the franchise later re-oriented itself around a new pair of leads with Scream (2022). Unfortunately, the studio lost both Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega, which necessitated the return of original franchise icon Neve Campbell for Scream 7. The new movie is directed by original Scream scribe Kevin Williamson, and while it provides competent kills and fun moments for returning cast members, the sloppy plotting results in a film that only diehard fans will really enjoy.
Sydney’s Coming, And Hell Is Coming With Her
The basic premise of Scream 7 is that a new killer (or is it killers?) is gunning for Sydney Prescott, and they are claiming to be the original Scream villain, Stu Macher. Syd is skeptical and thinks Stu’s taunting video calls are just an AI fabrication, but the danger is all too real when her daughter and her daughter’s friends become targets for the attacker. Now, Sydney must team up with Gale Weathers and other returning allies, but even their combined strength may not be enough to defeat the one type of foe they have never fought before: one who refuses to follow any kind of rules.
The Stu Macher stuff is mostly an excuse to bring fan-favorite actor Matthew Lillard back into the fold, and his taunting video calls to Syd are easily one of the best parts of the film. Unfortunately, his presence is also evidence of the worst part of the film: namely, that Scream 7 is much more interested in wallowing in nostalgia than really building anything new. This is a franchise that once deconstructed the entire horror genre, and every movie was fair game. Now, the latest Scream is only interested in its own lore, and with nothing left to really deconstruct, all director Kevin Williamson can really do is play the hits of yesteryear.
Like Mother, Like Daughter
On paper, that happens through a loose reconstruction of the first film: Sydney now has a daughter of her own, one who is the exact age that Syd was when the Woodsboro murders went down. She’s got a slightly creepy boyfriend who likes to climb in her window for surprise snuggles and a group of hapless friends that soon become cannon fodder for a marauding masked killer. The police (including her dad, the chief) are helpless to stop the carnage, forcing these plucky teens to take matters into their own hands lest they get picked off one by one.
A remake (or requel, or whatever we’re calling all this crap now) of the first film works well on paper, but the essential problem of Scream 7 is that it can’t decide which characters to focus on. We start out with an uneasy balance of newer and older actors, but the film soon focuses almost exclusively on legacy characters like Sydney Prescott, Gale Weathers, and even Scream 5 and 6 veterans Chad and Mindy. While that leads to some great fan service for returning audiences, it creates one of the film’s biggest problems: we don’t really get to know almost any of these younger characters before Ghostface is picking them off.
Ghostface Is Back For More Blood Than Ever Before
Fortunately, the kills in this movie are some of the nastiest and most memorable in the entire franchise, and Ghostface is as viscerally scary as ever as he dispatches victims in increasingly grotesque ways. Accordingly, your enjoyment of Scream 7 will largely hinge on your primary motivation for watching slasher movies. If you’re here for killers looking cool (the kids call it aura farming) and pretty faces dying ugly deaths, this latest franchise entry delivers all that and a bloody bag of chips. If you prefer to get to know the virtual victims before they are transformed into raw meat, you’ll likely find Scream 7 to be the weakest movie in the entire series.
Speaking of weak, the reveal of the killer (or is it killers? Don’t worry, I’m keeping this spoiler-free) is particularly disappointing because the motivation for stalking Sydney comes out of nowhere. In the first movie, Stu Macher and particularly Billy Loomis had tangible reasons for stalking Syd, and discovering who the killers were felt a bit like solving the puzzle of a whodunnit. Like Scream 6 before it, Scream 7 tries too hard to surprise fans with the reveal, and this came at a cost: namely, the killer’s motivation makes no real sense, and it comes in the form of an exposition chunk so thick it threatens to choke the climax of the movie.
Killer Performances From Actors Old And New
Aside from the cool kills, Scream 7 does a few other things very well. The new additions to the cast are awesome: Community’s Joel McHale is weirdly perfect as Sydney’s top cop husband, and the character steals his handful of scenes with McHale’s trademark rogueish charisma. But I was even more pleasantly surprised by Isabel May, who convincingly gives Sydney Prescott’s daughter an aching vulnerability whose pain masks ice-cold reserves of hidden strength.
As you might imagine, the returning actors all do a great job, starting with Courtney Cox: her Gale Weathers is as fierce and funny as ever, and she has taken the characters played by returning actors Mason Gooding and Jasmin Savoy Brown under her wing as journalistic interns. Those younger characters continue to provide humorous, Randy-like commentary on the violent proceedings around them. But the actor truly giving it her all is Neve Campbell, whose Sydney reluctantly saddles up for one last fight with the ghostly demons of her past.
When You Stare At The Past, It Stares Right Back
Ultimately, how much you like Scream 7 will depend on how much you enjoy the franchise as a whole. As for myself, I’m a superfan: I saw the original in theaters, I’ve listened to the cast speak at multiple conventions, and I’ve got a house filled with way too much Ghostface merchandise. From the perspective of a superfan, the film is decent (good, not great) in bringing back our favorite characters and wrapping up its derivative story in the bloody packaging of some truly innovative kills.
If you’re not a Scream fanboy, though, it’s worth waiting to catch this on streaming, assuming that you catch it at all. Kevin Williamson wrote the legendary first film in this franchise, but now that he’s in the director’s chair, he created a movie that only complete franchise diehards will really enjoy. As for everyone else, let’s just say that if Ghostface calls, Scream 7 will never be the answer to this franchise’s age-old question: “what’s your favorite scary movie?”
Entertainment
Wordle today: Answer, hints for March 1, 2026
Today’s Wordle answer should be easy to solve if you believe in coincidences.
If you just want to be told today’s word, you can jump to the bottom of this article for today’s Wordle solution revealed. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.
Where did Wordle come from?
Originally created by engineer Josh Wardle as a gift for his partner, Wordle rapidly spread to become an international phenomenon, with thousands of people around the globe playing every day. Alternate Wordle versions created by fans also sprang up, including battle royale Squabble, music identification game Heardle, and variations like Dordle and Quordle that make you guess multiple words at once.
Wordle eventually became so popular that it was purchased by the New York Times, and TikTok creators even livestream themselves playing.
What’s the best Wordle starting word?
The best Wordle starting word is the one that speaks to you. But if you prefer to be strategic in your approach, we have a few ideas to help you pick a word that might help you find the solution faster. One tip is to select a word that includes at least two different vowels, plus some common consonants like S, T, R, or N.
What happened to the Wordle archive?
The entire archive of past Wordle puzzles was originally available for anyone to enjoy whenever they felt like it, but it was later taken down, with the website’s creator stating it was done at the request of the New York Times. However, the New York Times then rolled out its own Wordle Archive, available only to NYT Games subscribers.
Is Wordle getting harder?
It might feel like Wordle is getting harder, but it actually isn’t any more difficult than when it first began. You can turn on Wordle‘s Hard Mode if you’re after more of a challenge, though.
Here’s a subtle hint for today’s Wordle answer:
A coincidence.
Mashable Top Stories
Does today’s Wordle answer have a double letter?
There are no recurring letters.
Today’s Wordle is a 5-letter word that starts with…
Today’s Wordle starts with the letter F.
The Wordle answer today is…
Get your last guesses in now, because it’s your final chance to solve today’s Wordle before we reveal the solution.
Drumroll please!
The solution to today’s Wordle is…
FLUKE
Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be a new Wordle for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints. Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.
Reporting by Chance Townsend, Caitlin Welsh, Sam Haysom, Amanda Yeo, Shannon Connellan, Cecily Mauran, Mike Pearl, and Adam Rosenberg contributed to this article.
If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.
Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Wordle.
Cards extend manager Oliver Marmol through '28 season
Tyler Reif treated for heat exhaustion after Trucks race
