Table of Contents

These days, it’s not uncommon to see new generations of tech launch with higher prices than their predecessors.

Yet Marshall announced its latest Bluetooth speaker, the Stockwell III, on June 9 with a price of $249.99 — the same as the price of the Stockwell II. This decision is even more exceptional considering the older speaker launched seven years ago.

Despite the decision to keep the speaker at the same price point, Marshall is rolling out some significant improvements. Below, we break down what to expect from the speaker.

Marshall Stockwell III: Price and specs

The Marshall Stockwell III will be available for purchase on Aug. 4 on Marshall’s website and at Costco for $249.99. Spec-wise, here’s what to expect from the speaker:

• Battery life: 40 hours

• IP rating: IP55 rated

• Drivers: One three-inch woofer and two 1.75-inch wide band drivers

• Sound features: True Stereophonic 360-degree all-around audio

• Charging: USB-C

• Materials: Silicone sleeve, PU leather strap with velvet lining, brass control panel, metal front and back grilles

• Size: 7.1 x 5.9 x 2.8 inches

• Weight: 2.9 pounds

• Extras: Modular and replaceable parts, including the battery, grilles, silicone sleeve, and carrying case

• Colors: Black, brass and cream

Better battery and options for longevity

The headline news with this upgrade is the battery life, which Marshall doubled from 20 hours on the Stockwell II to 40 hours on the Stockwell III.

The IPX4 water- and dust-proof rating of the Stockwell II gets boosted to IP55 on the Stockwell II, and the control panel gets a cosmetic upgrade with the brass detailing. Still, you can adjust bass and treble settings directly from the speaker as you could with the past generation, in a design choice that feels very aligned with Marshall’s branding. Newly added is the M-button, which allows you to access your presets directly from the speaker.

The brass panel is a design upgrade that elevates the Stockwell III.
Credit: Marshall

Another major update is the replaceable parts, which have the potential to add some serious longevity to this speaker’s battery life. This isn’t the first time Marshall has pulled this move: the newly released Milton headphones also come with the option to buy and replace your own battery. In addition to the Stockwell III’s battery, you can also replace the strap, front and back grilles, silicone sleeve, and carrying case.

The Stockwell III versus other Bluetooth speakers

When our sister site PC Mag reviewed the Stockton II back in 2019, they called out the impressively well-rounded sound with “rich bass and bright highs.” While the reviewer appreciated the performance of the Stockton at the time, they did mention it was on the pricier end.

That’s not unusual for Marshall, and though we can’t speak firsthand to the experience of the Stockwell III, it is notable that there are options to replace parts on this speaker. The 360-sound feature also boosts this speaker’s value prop, especially as it delivers in performance. That said, there are more affordable Bluetooth speaker options, including from Marshall (if the design is what draws you in most).

Marshall Stockwell III: How to buy

The Stockwell III speaker isn’t yet available, with its official launch slated for Aug. 4 on Marshall’s website and at Costco.

By Chris Snellgrove
| Updated 20 seconds ago

While I mostly lurk these days, I’m still hanging around on X, formerly known as Twitter. Admittedly, the place has become a real hellscape, with a feed constantly serving up ragebait and idiots constantly asking Grok to do their thinking for them. Speaking of idiots, X is filled with people who pay for blue checks, and as you might imagine, the people who pay extra to force their comments to the top almost never have anything interesting to say. Why am I still there, then? Because every single day, there’s some insanely brilliant bit of sh*tposting that makes me utter the motto every Twitter veteran: “I’m never leaving this site.” 

For example, even though the last House episode aired nearly a decade and a half ago, new fans are constantly discovering the show. New haters, too, as evidenced by one user (@jan_murray) starting Season 1 and griping about the show’s repetitive episode formula. Normally, this would be no big deal; people posting bad media takes on X is hardly anything new. What made her critique noteworthy, though, is that House star Hugh Laurie actually provided a response so wonderfully sarcastic and withering that it’s like he brought his famous TV doctor back for one last rodeo. A Golden Globe-winning actor dunking on a random fan out of nowhere? Man, I’m never leaving this site!

The New Main Character Is Here

All of this began with X user Janet Murray’s capsule review of House. Admitting that she was “late to the party,” she described starting Season 1 and getting annoyed with its repetitive story structure. “Patient has mysterious illness. Hugh Laurie (House) gets diagnosis wrong. Patient nearly dies.” She goes on to describe how the titular characters will get the diagnosis wrong again and nearly get fired, with the patient almost dying again. Finally, “Hugh Laurie has last minute leftfield idea. Gets diagnosis right. Doesn’t get fired.” She ends her critique with a rhetorical question: “Eight seasons of this?” 

As expected, many House superfans began mocking her criticisms. But that was nothing compared to Hugh Laurie, House himself, coming into the comment section like a wrecking ball. He immediately began with his character’s signature snark, criticizing her use of brackets in the original post. The actor then sarcastically noted that the crew tried a couple of episodes where “House gets it right the first time, but they were only 6 minutes long. NBC weren’t happy.“ He then joked that they tried episodes “where House never gets it right and the patient dies. The audience wasn’t happy.”

Making A House Call

Honestly, this was already brutal enough, but Laurie wasn’t done. Continuing, he wrote, “One could apply your trenchant analysis to other art forms: JS Bach wrote 30 Goldberg variations on the same chord structure; Frida Kahlo painted 50 portraits of herself…The point is, or was, variations on a theme; if all you see is hospital, medical blah blah, then it wasn’t meant for you.” As if he could hear the House fandom crying for him to finish her, Laurie added an absolutely devastating final sentence: “Nonetheless, I look forward to your first novel!”

Aside from the relative novelty of a famous actor talking sh*t to a sh*t poster, what makes Hugh Laurie’s response so great is that it might as well have been written by House. From the initial mocking of her communication to dragging her for not understanding media, the whole thing feels like a (slightly) more polite version of the TV doctor’s famous onscreen takedowns. Plus, Laurie’s final dig, essentially pointing out that this is creative criticism from someone who hasn’t created much, feels like the kind of thing House might throw out, mid-argument, before dramatically walking away.

The Diagnosis Is Correct

Beyond the sarcasm, Laurie offers some pretty spot-on media analysis. Most great new stories are, in fact, variations on stories we have seen before. Joseph Campbell pointed this out in his groundbreaking 1949 book Hero with a Thousand Faces. According to him, most great myths (ranging from The Odyssey to the Bible) tell the same essential story using different variations of the same tropes. He called this the “monomyth,” and his theories influenced George Lucas. This is why the first Star Wars, despite being sci-fi, has so many King Arthur callbacks: a magical mentor, an enchanted sword,  and a hero of destiny who has to rescue a damsel in distress from a terrifying castle.

While many fans and even a few of the show’s actors have been hoping for a House revival, nothing has been announced. Realistically, we may never get another TV series that brings back Hugh Laurie’s famously cantankerous physician. However, this hilarious kerfluffle over on X is a reminder that fans can effectively summon House back for more wit and wisdom whenever they want. All they have to do is say something really, really stupid where Hugh Laurie can see it, and then brace themselves for the most hilarious clapbacks in celebrity history!

By Chris Snellgrove
| Updated 1 hour ago

Right now, Starfleet Academy is in a very weird place. The show was canceled almost immediately after Season 1 ended, and the most likely reason is that it just didn’t have enough viewers to justify a renewal. However, Season 2 has already been filmed, meaning that we are (unless the network Batgirls the thing) likely to see more adventures of these controversial cadets. That means that Paramount can’t really say anything definitive about why the show ended for fear of diminishing the audience even further. For that same reason, none of the powers that be at Star Trek can say anything even remotely critical about it.

Or can they? Recently, Strange New Worlds showrunners Akiva Goldsman and Henry Alonso gave an interview explaining what fans could look forward to with this show’s fourth season. This mostly concerned character development and just how much work went into the dreaded muppet episode. However, they also went out of their way to emphasize how this season wasn’t going to have its own “Big Bad.” Goldsman elaborated that this meant nothing like the Gorn or the Vezda, but these guys were never Big Bads in the traditional sense of the term. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this sounded like a different reassurance altogether: that SNW would be nothing like Starfleet Academy!

Big Bad Or Just A Big Bite?

In a recent interview with Polygon, Strange New Worlds showrunner Akiva Goldsman said that Strange New Worlds Season 4 is going to have more of an episodic, Original Series style of storytelling. That means no “Big Bad” whose story would take multiple episodes to complete, like the Gorn in the first two seasons and the Vezda in Season 3. However, these guys weren’t Big Bads as we know the term. The Gorn made a couple of scary appearances in Season 1 and were part of a Season 2 cliffhanger, but they weren’t an ongoing concern. Similarly, the Vezda appeared in only two Season 3 episodes, where they showed the ability to possess various bodies.  

Both the Gorn and the Vezda are faceless bad guys. Like, the Gorn are presented as Star Trek’s version of the xenomorphs, and they are scary because they are unknowable. The Vezda, meanwhile, are quite literally faceless, having to take over others’ bodies to give themselves a properly corporeal form. The term “Big Bad” was coined by Buffy the Vampire Slayer writers to refer to the dominant villain of each season. Big Bads included demons like Mayor Wilkins, former allies like Angelus and Dark Willow, occasional gods like Glory, and so on. These villains usually had at least half a season of development and served as big personalities for our heroes to consistently bounce off of.

Star Trek’s Latest Big Bad

What does this have to do with Starfleet Academy? Strange New Worlds didn’t have Buffy-style Big Bads: the Gorn and the Vezda were minor parts of their respective seasons, and they aren’t exactly villains for our heroes to bounce off of. The Gorn don’t talk, and the Vezda can only hop into others’ bodies to spout vaguely threatening comments about evil. But there was a recent Star Trek show with a larger-than-life villain whose oversized personality dominated the entire season. In Starfleet Academy, Paul Giamatti’s Nus Braka appears in half of Season 1, including an explosive entrance in the first episode and an extremely memorable bow in the last episode.

Nus Braka cast a long shadow over Starfleet Academy’s entire first season. He’s part of Caleb’s dark origin story and has an outsized effect on the cadet’s development. He outwits the cadets and their mentors, managing to blow up a Starfleet vessel and steal classified research with which he used to threaten the entire Federation. While I personally thought Giamatti gave a great performance, the fact remains that if you don’t like his character, you’re probably not going to like the show because he’s just in it so much.

Big Bads? Zero. Muppets? One

That brings us back to Akiva Goldsman’s comments to Polygon about Strange New Worlds Season 4 having no Big Bads. Because the show never really had proper, Buffy-style Big Bads, my theory is that the showrunner was quietly distancing his own show from Starfleet Academy. His comment is a way of saying that SNW didn’t go all-in on a single villain, so you don’t have to worry about an overused enemy driving you away. That is, of course, part of the show’s episodic charm: as with earlier shows like The Original Series and The Next Generation, the sheer variety of stories means that even if you hate one episode, you may love the next.

So, call me a conspiracy theorist if you must (don’t make me wear one of those neck bugs from “Conspiracy”), but Akiva Goldsman’s comments about no Big Bads in Strange New Worlds Season 4 seem like a coded way of saying “don’t worry, it won’t be like Starfleet Academy.” That might upset some fans who would prefer more solidarity between shows and showrunners. But to anyone who hated SFA (especially if they hated it because of Nus Braka), this might be just enough reassurance for them to tune into Strange New Worlds when it premieres July 23rd on Paramount+.