The recent success of zero- and few-shot prompting with models like GPT-3 has led to a paradigm shift in NLP research. In this paper, we study its impact on text summarization, focusing on the classic benchmark domain of news summarization. First, we investigate how zero-shot GPT-3 compares against fine-tuned models trained on large summarization datasets. We show that not only do humans overwhelmingly prefer GPT-3 summaries, but these also do not suffer from common dataset-specific issues such as poor factuality. Next, we study what this means for evaluation, particularly the role of gold standard test sets. Our experiments show that both reference-based and reference-free automatic metrics, e.g. recently proposed QA- or entailment-based factuality approaches, cannot reliably evaluate zero-shot summaries. Finally, we discuss future research challenges beyond generic summarization, specifically, keyword- and aspect-based summarization, showing how dominant fine-tuning approaches compare to zero-shot prompting. To support further research, we release: (a) a corpus of 10K generated summaries from fine-tuned and zero-shot models across 4 standard summarization benchmarks, (b) 1K human preference judgments and rationales comparing different systems for generic- and keyword-based summarization.