In May, Google announced plans to enable two-factor authentication (or two-step verification as it’s referring to the setup) by default to enable more security for many accounts. Now it’s Cybersecurity Awareness Month, and Google is once again reminding us of that plan, saying in a blog post that it will enable two-factor for 150 million more accounts by the end of this year.In 2018, Google said that only 10 percent of its active accounts were using two-factor authentication. It has been pushing, prodding, and encouraging people to enable the setting ever since. Another prong of the effort will require more than 2 million YouTube creators to turn on two-factor authentication to protect their channels from takeover. Google says it has partnered with organizations to give away more than 10,000 hardware security keys every year. Its push for two-factor has made the technology readily available on your phone whether you use Android or iPhone.A tool that also helps users keep their accounts secure is using a password manager, and Google now says that it checks over a billion passwords a day via its built-in manager for Chrome, Android, and the Google app. The password manager is also available on iOS, where Chrome can autofill logins for other apps. Google says that soon it will help you generate passwords for other apps, making things even more straightforward. Also coming soon is the ability to see all of your saved passwords directly from the Google app menu.Last but not least, Google is highlighting its Inactive Account Manager. This is a set of decisions to make about what happens to your account if you decide to stop using it or are no longer around and able to make those decisions.Google added the feature in 2013 so that you can set a timeout period for your account between three and 18 months of disuse before the Inactive Account Manager protocols take effect. Just in case you only switched accounts or forgot about your login, Google will send an email a month before the limit is up. At that point, you can choose to have your information deleted or have it forwarded to whatever trusted contacts you want to have handling things on your behalf. Google’s blog post notes that an inactive account led to the massive Colonial Pipeline attack earlier this year, and just for security’s sake, you probably don’t want your digital life simply hanging around unused for whatever hackers are bored in the future
In May, Google announced plans to enable two-factor authentication (or two-step verification as it’s referring to the setup) by default to enable more security for many accounts. Now it’s Cybersecurity Awareness Month, and Google is once again reminding us of that plan, saying in a blog post that it will enable two-factor for 150 million more accounts by the end of this year.
In 2018, Google said that only 10 percent of its active accounts were using two-factor authentication. It has been pushing, prodding, and encouraging people to enable the setting ever since. Another prong of the effort will require more than 2 million YouTube creators to turn on two-factor authentication to protect their channels from takeover. Google says it has partnered with organizations to give away more than 10,000 hardware security keys every year. Its push for two-factor has made the technology readily available on your phone whether you use Android or iPhone.
A tool that also helps users keep their accounts secure is using a password manager, and Google now says that it checks over a billion passwords a day via its built-in manager for Chrome, Android, and the Google app. The password manager is also available on iOS, where Chrome can autofill logins for other apps. Google says that soon it will help you generate passwords for other apps, making things even more straightforward. Also coming soon is the ability to see all of your saved passwords directly from the Google app menu.
Last but not least, Google is highlighting its Inactive Account Manager. This is a set of decisions to make about what happens to your account if you decide to stop using it or are no longer around and able to make those decisions.
Google added the feature in 2013 so that you can set a timeout period for your account between three and 18 months of disuse before the Inactive Account Manager protocols take effect. Just in case you only switched accounts or forgot about your login, Google will send an email a month before the limit is up. At that point, you can choose to have your information deleted or have it forwarded to whatever trusted contacts you want to have handling things on your behalf. Google’s blog post notes that an inactive account led to the massive Colonial Pipeline attack earlier this year, and just for security’s sake, you probably don’t want your digital life simply hanging around unused for whatever hackers are bored in the future
The pauses come amid reports of possible rare side effects from the Moderna jab, including heart inflammation.Swedish health agency says it will pause using Moderna for people born in 1991 and after data pointed to an increase of myocarditis and pericarditis among youths and young adults who had been vaccinated [Rogelio V Solis/AP Photo]Sweden and Denmark have said they will pause the use of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for younger age groups after reports of possible rare side effects, such as myocarditis.The Swedish health agency said on Wednesday it would pause using the shot for people born in 1991 and after as data pointed to an increase of myocarditis and pericarditis among youths and young adults that had been vaccinated. Those conditions involve an inflammation of the heart or its lining.“The connection is especially clear when it comes to Moderna’s vaccine Spikevax, especially after the second dose,” the health agency said in a statement, adding the risk of being affected was very small.Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, said the health agency would continue to “follow the situation closely and act quickly to ensure that vaccinations against COVID-19 are always as safe as possible and at the same time provide effective protection” against the disease.In Denmark, people under the age of 18 will not be offered the Moderna vaccine out of precaution, the Danish Health Authority said on Wednesday.It said that data, collected from four Nordic countries, shows there is a suspicion of an increased risk of heart inflammation when vaccinated with Moderna shots, although the number of cases of heart inflammation remains very low.The preliminary data from the Nordic study have been sent to the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) adverse reaction committee and will now be assessed.Sweden and Denmark said they now recommended the Comirnaty vaccine, from Pfizer/BioNTech, instead.Norway already recommends the Cominarty vaccine to minors and said on Wednesday that it was reiterating this, underlining that the rare side effects may be more frequent for boys and young men, and mainly after receiving a second dose.“Men under the age of 30 should also consider choosing Cominarty when they get vaccinated,” Geir Bukholm, head of infection control at the Norwegian Institute of Publica Health, said in a statement.A Finnish health official said Finland expected to publish a decision on Thursday.The EMA approved the use of Comirnaty in May, while Spikevax was given the nod for children over 12 years old in July.
The pauses come amid reports of possible rare side effects from the Moderna jab, including heart inflammation.
Swedish health agency says it will pause using Moderna for people born in 1991 and after data pointed to an increase of myocarditis and pericarditis among youths and young adults who had been vaccinated [Rogelio V Solis/AP Photo]
Sweden and Denmark have said they will pause the use of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for younger age groups after reports of possible rare side effects, such as myocarditis.
The Swedish health agency said on Wednesday it would pause using the shot for people born in 1991 and after as data pointed to an increase of myocarditis and pericarditis among youths and young adults that had been vaccinated. Those conditions involve an inflammation of the heart or its lining.
“The connection is especially clear when it comes to Moderna’s vaccine Spikevax, especially after the second dose,” the health agency said in a statement, adding the risk of being affected was very small.
Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, said the health agency would continue to “follow the situation closely and act quickly to ensure that vaccinations against COVID-19 are always as safe as possible and at the same time provide effective protection” against the disease.
In Denmark, people under the age of 18 will not be offered the Moderna vaccine out of precaution, the Danish Health Authority said on Wednesday.
It said that data, collected from four Nordic countries, shows there is a suspicion of an increased risk of heart inflammation when vaccinated with Moderna shots, although the number of cases of heart inflammation remains very low.
The preliminary data from the Nordic study have been sent to the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) adverse reaction committee and will now be assessed.
Sweden and Denmark said they now recommended the Comirnaty vaccine, from Pfizer/BioNTech, instead.
Norway already recommends the Cominarty vaccine to minors and said on Wednesday that it was reiterating this, underlining that the rare side effects may be more frequent for boys and young men, and mainly after receiving a second dose.
“Men under the age of 30 should also consider choosing Cominarty when they get vaccinated,” Geir Bukholm, head of infection control at the Norwegian Institute of Publica Health, said in a statement.
A Finnish health official said Finland expected to publish a decision on Thursday.
The EMA approved the use of Comirnaty in May, while Spikevax was given the nod for children over 12 years old in July.
A TikTok video made by a Squid Game fan reveals that the series’ English subtitles don’t often accurately translate to their Korean meaning. Squid Game is a survival drama written and directed by Hwang Dong-hyuk with a stellar cast of South Korean stars, including Lee Jung-Jae, Park Hae-soo, Jung Ho-Yeon, Kim Joo-ryoung, and O Yeong-su. The story revolves around a contest where 456 players from all walks of life play a series of children’s games in an attempt to win the grand prize of ₩45.6 billion (approximately $38.7 million). The cash prize may be enticing, but the players soon discover that the consequence for failing to accomplish a task is immediate death. Despite this, the competitors eagerly battle it out for various personal reasons.While its plot may be similar to other dystopian films such as Hunger Games, Squid Game is praised for its impeccable production, thrilling episodes, and complex themes that highlight economic disparities and human struggles. The Korean drama has been making waves worldwide since its debut last Sept. 17. Currently, it is poised to become Netflix’s most-viewed series to date, maintaining the top spot in the U.S. and many other countries for several weeks now. Squid Game’s success has bolstered Netflix’s foreign programming and brought attention to other Korean dramas.Despite its smashing success, there have been issues about Squid Game’s multi-lingual captions. There were several instances when the show’s English subtitles did not accurately translate the original meaning. TikTok user Youngmimayer, who’s fluent in the Korean language, pointed this out in a series of videos and tweets. She cited many scenes that “get botched,” including those of Mi-nyeo (Kim Joo-ryoung) and Oh Il-nam (O Yeong-su). While most of the translation misses are minor ones, some dialogues do not capture the exact context in the Korean language. One such example is when Mi-nyeo is trying to convince other people to play with her. The English subtitles read, “I’m not a genius, but I can work it out.” The Squid Game fan translated it to: “I am very smart; I just never got the chance to study.” Read her explanation as to why this is a massive departure from its literal meaning:That is a huge trope in Korean media. The poor person that’s smart and clever and just isn’t wealthy. That’s a huge part of her character. Almost everything she said is being botched translation-wise, but you just missed all the writer wants you to know about her. It seems so small, but it’s the entire character’s purpose of being in the f***ing show!Another vital scene that Netflix’s English subtitles didn’t correctly translate is when Oh Il-nam says “gganbu” while talking to Seong Gi-hun (Lee Jung-jae). The subtitle translated the Korean term as “we share everything,” which should be “there is no ownership between me and you.” These seemingly minor lines contain deeper meanings in the Korean language that foreign viewers fail to see because the captioning isn’t accurate.It’s pretty common for foreign films and series to have some scenes get lost in translation due to language and cultural differences. Whether dubbed or subtitled, there will always be limitations when a spoken language is translated. Thankfully, today’s viewers are more connected through social media, where fans can healthily exchange views and thoughts about their favorite shows. Squid Game is a Korean production, but its global success proves that universal themes about hope, family, and equality can be appreciated by audiences of all backgrounds.Source: Youngmimayer/TikTok
A TikTok video made by a Squid Gamefan reveals that the series’ English subtitles don’t often accurately translate to their Korean meaning. Squid Game is a survival drama written and directed by Hwang Dong-hyuk with a stellar cast of South Korean stars, including Lee Jung-Jae, Park Hae-soo, Jung Ho-Yeon, Kim Joo-ryoung, and O Yeong-su. The storyrevolves around a contest where 456 players from all walks of life play a series of children’s games in an attempt to win the grand prize of ₩45.6 billion (approximately $38.7 million). The cash prize may be enticing, but the players soon discover that the consequence for failing to accomplish a task is immediate death. Despite this, the competitors eagerly battle it out for various personal reasons.
While its plot may be similar to other dystopian films such as Hunger Games, Squid Game is praised for its impeccable production, thrilling episodes, and complex themes that highlight economic disparities and human struggles. The Korean drama has been making waves worldwide since its debut last Sept. 17. Currently, it is poised to become Netflix’s most-viewed series to date, maintaining the top spot in the U.S. and many other countries for several weeks now. Squid Game’s success has bolstered Netflix’s foreign programming and brought attention to other Korean dramas.
Despite its smashing success, there have been issues about Squid Game’s multi-lingual captions. There were several instances when the show’s English subtitles did not accurately translate the original meaning. TikTok user Youngmimayer, who’s fluent in the Korean language, pointed this out in a series of videos and tweets. She cited many scenes that “get botched,” including those of Mi-nyeo (Kim Joo-ryoung) and Oh Il-nam (O Yeong-su). While most of the translation misses are minor ones, some dialogues do not capture the exact context in the Korean language. One such example is when Mi-nyeo is trying to convince other people to play with her. The English subtitles read, “I’m not a genius, but I can work it out.” The Squid Game fan translated it to: “I am very smart; I just never got the chance to study.” Read her explanation as to why this is a massive departure from its literal meaning:
That is a huge trope in Korean media. The poor person that’s smart and clever and just isn’t wealthy. That’s a huge part of her character. Almost everything she said is being botched translation-wise, but you just missed all the writer wants you to know about her. It seems so small, but it’s the entire character’s purpose of being in the f***ing show!
Another vital scene that Netflix’s English subtitles didn’t correctly translate is when Oh Il-nam says “gganbu” while talking to Seong Gi-hun (Lee Jung-jae). The subtitle translated the Korean term as “we share everything,” which should be “there is no ownership between me and you.” These seemingly minor lines contain deeper meanings in the Korean language that foreign viewers fail to see because the captioning isn’t accurate.
It’s pretty common for foreign films and series to have some scenes get lost in translation due to language and cultural differences. Whether dubbed or subtitled, there will always be limitations when a spoken language is translated. Thankfully, today’s viewers are more connected through social media, where fans can healthily exchange views and thoughts about their favorite shows. Squid Game is a Korean production, but its global success proves that universal themes about hope, family, and equality can be appreciated by audiences of all backgrounds.
Warning: SPOILERS for Marvel’s What If…? Season 1 Finale – “What If… The Watcher Broke His Oath?”Marvel’s What If…? season 1 finale brought the heroes across the show’s various MCU timelines to stop Ultron (Ross Marquand), who threatened to destroy the Multiverse with the Infinity Stones. In “What If… The Watcher Broke His Oath?” the Watcher (Jeffrey Wright) assembled the Guardians of the Multiverse, including Captain Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), T’Challa Star-Lord (Chadwick Boseman), and Black Widow (Lake Bell) to join Doctor Strange Supreme (Benedict Cumberbatch) and stop Ultron once and for all.Screen Rant had the pleasure to interview What If…?’s director, Bryan Andrews, and showrunner AC Bradley, about What If…?’s finale, the overall scope of season 1, what to expect from What If…? season 2, and how different Thanos was in What If…? compared to the fearsome Mad Titan in Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame.Screen Rant: Marvel movies have some of the best superhero action ever, but with animation, there are really no limits. What were your favorite action beats in What If…? Season 1 and were you trying to top the movies?Bryan Andrews: I’ve done a bunch of storyboards and a bunch of action sequences for the movies over the years so I just attacked it the exact same way I did those movies. What does the story need? What does the character need? What excites me? I just leaped into it the same way I did the action in Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame, Thor, the Guardians [of the Galaxy].Favorite ones? There’s a lot. I think Nat in the truck beating up a bunch of SHIELD guys [in What If…? episode 3] is hilarious, but I think the Captain Marvel and Thor fight [in What If…? episode 7] turned out really well. We got to get goofy with it and big and crazy, so I think that’s what’s fun. One of the differences is the fact that I have the position that I have on the show, I get to make sure the vision gets out but when you’re doing a movie, you’re just one in the cog of the machine so sometimes what you do gets on the screen and sometimes it doesn’t. But here I got to make sure what we wanted to do made it to the screen so that was pretty awesome.The finale really brought What If…? season 1 together. The What If…? comics were one-shots that didn’t usually connect. How early in the process did you decide heroes from the various timelines would team up?AC Bradley: When it came to talking about our first season of What If…? and picking what would be our original run of stories, I always knew that they were going to connect in the finale. The idea that the Watcher would, like he does in the comic books, say “No no no!” and eventually break his oath when the Multiverse is threatened, that was always in play.How those characters were going to interact and how everything was going to connect was kind of a fun puzzle for me because we were mixing genres and heroes. So we had our amazing 1940s Peggy Carter with the Super Soldier Serum, we had Star-Lord T’Challa, we knew they were going to be on the team. I definitely wanted to revisit Doctor Strange in his little prison of pain. How he was going to be part of the team wasn’t clear from day one but that was the fun of figuring out these stories. The same with Killmonger [Michael B. Jordan]. He’s not your typical hero but he was going to be necessary to the Watcher’s plan.How did you land on Ultron as the main bad guy of the season?AC Bradley: Well, I think any comic book lover knows Ultron in the comics is absolutely terrifying. Age of Ultron is great but was only one movie and at times, to me, it didn’t seem to give that classic villain enough screen time that I would have given him. [laughs] We can only fit so much in those movies. This was our opportunity to show what Ultron is capable of. And also, now as we’re hitting Phase 4, we have the Infinity Stones in play, we have the Multiverse, so what would happen if Ultron got the Infinity Gauntlet? How bad would it get? And it’s quite easy to jump to complete devastation!Are there characters or scenarios you wanted in season 1 that you weren’t able to include?Bryan Andrews: You know, it’s funny, there were so many episodes we pitched to Kevin [Feige]. It was like 30 and we were supposed to choose, like, 10 but he gave us 12 or 13 because he couldn’t whittle it down. There’s a lot of great episodes we would have loved to be able to do but you gotta choose only 10, right? And it turned out to be 9. I think what’s fun is one of the episodes that was supposed to be in this season, the Gamora and Tony [Stark] episode, it couldn’t be completed because of pandemic stuff but it got moved to season 2. So that’s awesome.And then also for time length, there are certain scenes and moments that were in a variety of the episodes that would have been fun to see but we just had no extra time. So some of these scenes had a little extra stuff that would have been fun to explore and see but we had to move a little bit quicker for time. I can’t get into any specifics [laughs] but yeah, there’s some stuff that would have been cool to see but maybe we’ll get a chance in the future.Will we see season 1’s characters again or will season 2 be all-new timelines explored?AC Bradley: In season 2, we get to play more with Phase 4 and those parts of the MCU Multiverse, so hopefully, you’ll see some Shang-Chi characters, some Black Widow characters, maybe an Eternal or two will pop up. As far as revisiting our season 1 heroes, I love Peggy Carter and our post-credit scene was kind of a promise. Hopefully, a promise that her story will continue in different ways.How do you top yourselves in What If…? season 2? Will there be another Multiversal threat or will you try something different?Bryan Andrews: We can’t tell you! [laugh]AC Bradley: In season 2, we’ll be focusing on different characters, new heroes, new stories. For me, the fun of What If…? isn’t just the spectacle and the thrills, it’s taking these iconic characters – both the ones we’ve grown up with and the ones we’re just meeting thanks to the movies – and showing different sides of who they are. Showing who is the human behind the iconic silhouette. For me, everything starts with character. The only reason people love seeing a giant Ultron fighting a wizard and a zombie is because we know their stories. And we’re invested.Bryan Andrews: True. I mean, just seeing Nat and Peggy interact [in the finale] is amazing, or that scene with Nat and Clint [Jeremy Renner] in the penultimate episode interacting. There are certain combinations where you just love seeing people together. You just love seeing the conversation. It’s that emotion that gets you invested so that with all the big “WHOOSH BANG” stuff, you’re free to jump out of your chair and go, “Woaaahh!” Because you have context. If it’s just all that other stuff with no connectivity, then it doesn’t have meaning. You gotta have both.I wanted to ask about Thanos (Josh Brolin), the biggest villain in phases 1-3. Here, he’s not quite as effectual as he was in the movies. Poor Thanos. Is he ever gonna catch a break in the Multiverse?Bryan Andrews: [laughs] Well, I think Thanos is pretty badass on his own. And I think it’s important for everyone to remember that it’s infinite possibilities. So yes, there are universes where Thanos maybe didn’t get his act together and isn’t quite as badass as we thought. Or he was on the verge and was defeated in a different way. I’m sure there’s a universe where Thor aimed for the head. And I’m sure there are probably hundreds of universes where Thanos steps out of that gate to see the Infinity Ultron and he just destroys that droid. That was one particular story that played out that one specific way to allow this certain thing to be achieved. And for that to happen, I think that particular Thanos just maybe was a little bit full of hubris. He didn’t check where he was going in advance and he was a little bit ill-prepared, but I don’t think that means that’s the only way that particular situation ever played out by a longshot.AC Bradley: There’s definitely a universe where Thanos got to McDonald’s after they stopped serving breakfast and decided to destroy the entire world.
Warning: SPOILERS for Marvel’s What If…? Season 1 Finale – “What If… The Watcher Broke His Oath?”
Marvel’s What If…? season 1 finale brought the heroes across the show’s various MCU timelines to stop Ultron (Ross Marquand), who threatened to destroy the Multiverse with the Infinity Stones. In “What If… The Watcher Broke His Oath?” the Watcher (Jeffrey Wright) assembled the Guardians of the Multiverse, including Captain Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), T’Challa Star-Lord (Chadwick Boseman), and Black Widow (Lake Bell) to join Doctor Strange Supreme (Benedict Cumberbatch) and stop Ultron once and for all.
Screen Rant had the pleasure to interview What If…?‘s director, Bryan Andrews, and showrunner AC Bradley, about What If…?‘s finale, the overall scope of season 1, what to expect from What If…? season 2, and how different Thanos was in What If…? compared to the fearsome Mad Titan in Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame.
Screen Rant: Marvel movies have some of the best superhero action ever, but with animation, there are really no limits. What were your favorite action beats in What If…? Season 1 and were you trying to top the movies?
Bryan Andrews: I’ve done a bunch of storyboards and a bunch of action sequences for the movies over the years so I just attacked it the exact same way I did those movies. What does the story need? What does the character need? What excites me? I just leaped into it the same way I did the action in Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame, Thor, the Guardians [of the Galaxy].
Favorite ones? There’s a lot. I think Nat in the truck beating up a bunch of SHIELD guys [in What If…? episode 3] is hilarious, but I think the Captain Marvel and Thor fight [in What If…? episode 7] turned out really well. We got to get goofy with it and big and crazy, so I think that’s what’s fun. One of the differences is the fact that I have the position that I have on the show, I get to make sure the vision gets out but when you’re doing a movie, you’re just one in the cog of the machine so sometimes what you do gets on the screen and sometimes it doesn’t. But here I got to make sure what we wanted to do made it to the screen so that was pretty awesome.
The finale really brought What If…? season 1 together. The What If…? comics were one-shots that didn’t usually connect. How early in the process did you decide heroes from the various timelines would team up?
AC Bradley: When it came to talking about our first season of What If…? and picking what would be our original run of stories, I always knew that they were going to connect in the finale. The idea that the Watcher would, like he does in the comic books, say “No no no!” and eventually break his oath when the Multiverse is threatened, that was always in play.
How those characters were going to interact and how everything was going to connect was kind of a fun puzzle for me because we were mixing genres and heroes. So we had our amazing 1940s Peggy Carter with the Super Soldier Serum, we had Star-Lord T’Challa, we knew they were going to be on the team. I definitely wanted to revisit Doctor Strange in his little prison of pain. How he was going to be part of the team wasn’t clear from day one but that was the fun of figuring out these stories. The same with Killmonger [Michael B. Jordan]. He’s not your typical hero but he was going to be necessary to the Watcher’s plan.
How did you land on Ultron as the main bad guy of the season?
AC Bradley: Well, I think any comic book lover knows Ultron in the comics is absolutely terrifying. Age of Ultron is great but was only one movie and at times, to me, it didn’t seem to give that classic villain enough screen time that I would have given him. [laughs] We can only fit so much in those movies. This was our opportunity to show what Ultron is capable of. And also, now as we’re hitting Phase 4, we have the Infinity Stones in play, we have the Multiverse, so what would happen if Ultron got the Infinity Gauntlet? How bad would it get? And it’s quite easy to jump to complete devastation!
Are there characters or scenarios you wanted in season 1 that you weren’t able to include?
Bryan Andrews: You know, it’s funny, there were so many episodes we pitched to Kevin [Feige]. It was like 30 and we were supposed to choose, like, 10 but he gave us 12 or 13 because he couldn’t whittle it down. There’s a lot of great episodes we would have loved to be able to do but you gotta choose only 10, right? And it turned out to be 9. I think what’s fun is one of the episodes that was supposed to be in this season, the Gamora and Tony [Stark] episode, it couldn’t be completed because of pandemic stuff but it got moved to season 2. So that’s awesome.
And then also for time length, there are certain scenes and moments that were in a variety of the episodes that would have been fun to see but we just had no extra time. So some of these scenes had a little extra stuff that would have been fun to explore and see but we had to move a little bit quicker for time. I can’t get into any specifics [laughs] but yeah, there’s some stuff that would have been cool to see but maybe we’ll get a chance in the future.
Will we see season 1’s characters again or will season 2 be all-new timelines explored?
AC Bradley: In season 2, we get to play more with Phase 4 and those parts of the MCU Multiverse, so hopefully, you’ll see some Shang-Chi characters, some Black Widow characters, maybe an Eternal or two will pop up. As far as revisiting our season 1 heroes, I love Peggy Carter and our post-credit scene was kind of a promise. Hopefully, a promise that her story will continue in different ways.
How do you top yourselves in What If…? season 2? Will there be another Multiversal threat or will you try something different?
Bryan Andrews: We can’t tell you! [laugh]
AC Bradley: In season 2, we’ll be focusing on different characters, new heroes, new stories. For me, the fun of What If…? isn’t just the spectacle and the thrills, it’s taking these iconic characters – both the ones we’ve grown up with and the ones we’re just meeting thanks to the movies – and showing different sides of who they are. Showing who is the human behind the iconic silhouette. For me, everything starts with character. The only reason people love seeing a giant Ultron fighting a wizard and a zombie is because we know their stories. And we’re invested.
Bryan Andrews: True. I mean, just seeing Nat and Peggy interact [in the finale] is amazing, or that scene with Nat and Clint [Jeremy Renner] in the penultimate episode interacting. There are certain combinations where you just love seeing people together. You just love seeing the conversation. It’s that emotion that gets you invested so that with all the big “WHOOSH BANG” stuff, you’re free to jump out of your chair and go, “Woaaahh!” Because you have context. If it’s just all that other stuff with no connectivity, then it doesn’t have meaning. You gotta have both.
I wanted to ask about Thanos (Josh Brolin), the biggest villain in phases 1-3. Here, he’s not quite as effectual as he was in the movies. Poor Thanos. Is he ever gonna catch a break in the Multiverse?
Bryan Andrews: [laughs] Well, I think Thanos is pretty badass on his own. And I think it’s important for everyone to remember that it’s infinite possibilities. So yes, there are universes where Thanos maybe didn’t get his act together and isn’t quite as badass as we thought. Or he was on the verge and was defeated in a different way. I’m sure there’s a universe where Thor aimed for the head. And I’m sure there are probably hundreds of universes where Thanos steps out of that gate to see the Infinity Ultron and he just destroys that droid. That was one particular story that played out that one specific way to allow this certain thing to be achieved. And for that to happen, I think that particular Thanos just maybe was a little bit full of hubris. He didn’t check where he was going in advance and he was a little bit ill-prepared, but I don’t think that means that’s the only way that particular situation ever played out by a longshot.
AC Bradley: There’s definitely a universe where Thanos got to McDonald’s after they stopped serving breakfast and decided to destroy the entire world.
Warning: Contains SPOILERS for Marvel’s What if…? episode 9.Marvel’s What If…? season 1 has come to an end, and the season finale ends with a curious post-credits scene that twists Captain America’s Avengers: Endgame ending for Captain Carter. The animated MCU has been primarily composed of isolated one-off stories set in different realities of the Marvel multiverse, but episode 9 unites a team of characters from across the season to battle Ultron as the Guardians of the Multiverse. The team includes What If…?’s Star-Lord T’Challa, Killmonger, Gamora, Party Thor, Strange Supreme, and of course, Captain Carter.The character of Captain Carter is introduced in What If…? episode 1, which shows a universe where Peggy Carter, not Steve Rogers, received the original super soldier serum. In that timeline, Steve dons an Iron Man-style mech suit called the Hydra Stomper to help Peggy battle bad guys. Just like in the original Captain America movie, Captain Carter ends up getting stolen out of her time after defeating Hydra and relocated to the present day, where she joins SHIELD and continues her heroic efforts around the world.After helping the Watcher defeat Ultron as part of the Guardians of the Multiverse, Captain Carter asks if she can go back to her original time period and be with Steve. But the Watcher denies her request. Instead, he puts her right back where she started the What If…? season 1 finale – on the ship from the beginning of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. But after taking down the terrorists on board with Black Widow, Peggy discovers that Steve might actually be alive.Clearly, the Watcher isn’t above breaking his oath of noninterference in the right situation. He intervenes to defeat Infinity Stone Ultron, and he places Black Widow in a different reality from the one she came from simply to make her happy. But when Peggy asks to go back in time, like how Steve does at the end of Avengers: Endgame, the Watcher says no. He states his reason pretty clearly – Captain Carter’s present-day universe still needs her, and it would likely be in big trouble if she were to leave. Sending her back to the 1940s would be too big of a change. By contrast, in Endgame, Captain America has reached the end of his starring role in his timeline. He’s given all he can, and his time as a hero is over, so it doesn’t have any major ramifications for him to leave. Plus, the Avengers’ time travel was part of their core reality, not a divergence from it, whereas a change enacted by the Watcher would have been a major Nexus event.Though the Watcher opts not to send Captain Carter back to World War II, he surely knew what awaited her back in her present-day timeline – an implied reconnection with Steve. Natasha shows Peggy that the terrorists on the ship were after a particularly sturdy piece of cargo – a metal crate holding the original Hydra Stomper suit, which, according to Black Widow, still has someone inside. The clear implication is that Steve is somehow alive and active, allowing Captain Carter to have a different king of Avengers: Endgame ending by reuniting with her love in the present day. However, the What If…? episode 9 ending also points to darker twist – that in Captain Carter’s universe, Steve became the Winter Soldier.While What If…? episode 9 may not confirm that Steve is the Winter Soldier, it’s heavily implied. The situation mirrors the second Captain America movie, which was all about the decades of torment and control visited on Bucky Barnes when he was the Winter Soldier. It seems unlikely that Steve and the Hydra Stomper would have still been active without SHIELD knowing about it unless he was being manipulated by some darker, more hidden faction. And since Hydra is likely still active in Captain Carter’s timeline, just as they were in the MCU’s Sacred Timeline, they could easily behind Steve’s return.What a Steve Rogers Winter Soldier would look like, however, is a little less clear. Since the Hydra Stomper is still being used, it’s unlikely that Steve was modified with Hydra’s super soldier serum in the same way that Bucky was. A successful transformation would have made the Hydra Stomper irrelevant and better suited to a less superpowered operative. But if Steve wasn’t modified with super soldier serum, why would he have been kept around at all? Theoretically, anybody could learn to pilot the Hydra Stomper, and if it fell into the wrong hands, it surely would have been easier to teach someone on the side of evil to use it than to try to coerce Steve. There are a lot of unexplained mysteries tied to Steve’s apparent What If…? return, and they may be solved in What If…? season 2.A good portion of Marvel’s What If…? season 2 will consist of entirely new realities and variants of characters, including some from MCU Phase 4. But there are also strong hints by the ending of What If…? season 1 that some of its characters could be revisited. The most obvious one to return to is Captain Carter, particularly because of the setup in the post-credits scene of What If…? episode 9. But will the show’s next season really reveal the truth about Steve Roger’s implied Winter Soldier transformation, or is it just a tease?Captain Carter has been one of the most popular characters in What If…? season 1, so it would make a lot of sense to revisit her in season 2. Since she now knows that Hydra survives World War II thanks to her multiverse adventure with Black Widow, she could hypothetically stop the tragic events of Captain America: The Winter Soldier from ever even happening in her own universe. That in itself is an interesting story, and it would be even more compelling with a Winter Soldier storyline involving Steve Rogers. Is he really alive? Did he get the super soldier serum? Or is someone else using the Hydra Stomper? Hopefully, Marvel’s What If…? season 2 will provide some answers.
Warning: Contains SPOILERS for Marvel’s What if…? episode 9.
Marvel’s What If…? season 1 has come to an end, and the season finale ends with a curious post-credits scene that twists Captain America’s Avengers: Endgame ending for Captain Carter. The animated MCU has been primarily composed of isolated one-off stories set in different realities of the Marvel multiverse, but episode 9 unites a team of characters from across the season to battle Ultron as the Guardians of the Multiverse. The team includes What If…?’s Star-Lord T’Challa, Killmonger, Gamora, Party Thor, Strange Supreme, and of course, Captain Carter.
The character of Captain Carter is introduced in What If…? episode 1, which shows a universe where Peggy Carter, not Steve Rogers, received the original super soldier serum. In that timeline, Steve dons an Iron Man-style mech suit called the Hydra Stomper to help Peggy battle bad guys. Just like in the original Captain America movie, Captain Carter ends up getting stolen out of her time after defeating Hydra and relocated to the present day, where she joins SHIELD and continues her heroic efforts around the world.
After helping the Watcher defeat Ultron as part of the Guardians of the Multiverse, Captain Carter asks if she can go back to her original time period and be with Steve. But the Watcher denies her request. Instead, he puts her right back where she started the What If…? season 1 finale – on the ship from the beginning of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. But after taking down the terrorists on board with Black Widow, Peggy discovers that Steve might actually be alive.
Clearly, the Watcher isn’t above breaking his oath of noninterference in the right situation. He intervenes to defeat Infinity Stone Ultron, and he places Black Widow in a different reality from the one she came from simply to make her happy. But when Peggy asks to go back in time, like how Steve does at the end of Avengers: Endgame, the Watcher says no. He states his reason pretty clearly – Captain Carter’s present-day universe still needs her, and it would likely be in big trouble if she were to leave. Sending her back to the 1940s would be too big of a change. By contrast, in Endgame, Captain America has reached the end of his starring role in his timeline. He’s given all he can, and his time as a hero is over, so it doesn’t have any major ramifications for him to leave. Plus, the Avengers’ time travel was part of their core reality, not a divergence from it, whereas a change enacted by the Watcher would have been a major Nexus event.
Though the Watcher opts not to send Captain Carter back to World War II, he surely knew what awaited her back in her present-day timeline – an implied reconnection with Steve. Natasha shows Peggy that the terrorists on the ship were after a particularly sturdy piece of cargo – a metal crate holding the original Hydra Stomper suit, which, according to Black Widow, still has someone inside. The clear implication is that Steve is somehow alive and active, allowing Captain Carter to have a different king of Avengers: Endgame ending by reuniting with her love in the present day. However, the What If…? episode 9 ending also points to darker twist – that in Captain Carter’s universe, Steve became the Winter Soldier.
While What If…? episode 9 may not confirm that Steve is the Winter Soldier, it’s heavily implied. The situation mirrors the second Captain America movie, which was all about the decades of torment and control visited on Bucky Barnes when he was the Winter Soldier. It seems unlikely that Steve and the Hydra Stomper would have still been active without SHIELD knowing about it unless he was being manipulated by some darker, more hidden faction. And since Hydra is likely still active in Captain Carter’s timeline, just as they were in the MCU’s Sacred Timeline, they could easily behind Steve’s return.
What a Steve Rogers Winter Soldier would look like, however, is a little less clear. Since the Hydra Stomper is still being used, it’s unlikely that Steve was modified with Hydra’s super soldier serum in the same way that Bucky was. A successful transformation would have made the Hydra Stomper irrelevant and better suited to a less superpowered operative. But if Steve wasn’t modified with super soldier serum, why would he have been kept around at all? Theoretically, anybody could learn to pilot the Hydra Stomper, and if it fell into the wrong hands, it surely would have been easier to teach someone on the side of evil to use it than to try to coerce Steve. There are a lot of unexplained mysteries tied to Steve’s apparent What If…? return, and they may be solved in What If…? season 2.
A good portion of Marvel’s What If…? season 2 will consist of entirely new realities and variants of characters, including some from MCU Phase 4. But there are also strong hints by the ending of What If…? season 1 that some of its characters could be revisited. The most obvious one to return to is Captain Carter, particularly because of the setup in the post-credits scene of What If…? episode 9. But will the show’s next season really reveal the truth about Steve Roger’s implied Winter Soldier transformation, or is it just a tease?
Captain Carter has been one of the most popular characters in What If…? season 1, so it would make a lot of sense to revisit her in season 2. Since she now knows that Hydra survives World War II thanks to her multiverse adventure with Black Widow, she could hypothetically stop the tragic events of Captain America: The Winter Soldier from ever even happening in her own universe. That in itself is an interesting story, and it would be even more compelling with a Winter Soldier storyline involving Steve Rogers. Is he really alive? Did he get the super soldier serum? Or is someone else using the Hydra Stomper? Hopefully, Marvel’s What If…? season 2 will provide some answers.
After the backlash to Game of Thrones season 8, prequel show House of the Dragon will have to overcome a problem that’s similar to the one seen after Star Wars: The Last Jedi. When Game of Thrones ended in 2019, it did so as the biggest TV show in the world. Many had long expected it to go out in a blaze of glory, but instead it simply sparked fires across the internet; to say it was divisive would perhaps be an understatement, as the final run of episodes were mauled by critics and audiences alike.HBO, however, is undeterred. Even before Game of Thrones ended, ideas for spinoffs set in Westeros and beyond were being explored, which will first come to fruition with House of the Dragon. The network has major plans for this universe, with multiple projects in various stages of development, but House of the Dragon will be the initial and biggest test not only of its viability as a true franchise, but of how much it has survived the backlash.Related: House Of The Dragon Is Fixing Game Of Thrones’ Iron Throne MistakeThis puts House of the Dragon in the same position the Star Wars sequel trilogy found itself in, with The Last Jedi quickly becoming one of the most divisive movies of the 21st Century. While it’s not an exact parallel, given this is a prequel rather than a sequel, there are similar hurdles to overcome, and certainly mistakes to be avoided in terms of how it approaches things.When Star Wars: The Last Jedi released in 2017, it soon became one of if not the most divisive entry in the entire saga, even accounting for the much-maligned prequel trilogy (which is now looked upon more favorably). There were a range of criticisms, but at the core of them was the idea that this fundamentally misunderstood or ruined what made Star Wars and its characters so great. Luke Skywalker, the greatest hero in the galaxy, was a hermit who not only wouldn’t join the fight, but had even been tempted to kill his nephew. Supreme Leader Snoke, the ostensible big bad of the sequel trilogy, was cut down without anything being revealed about his past. Rey, who many had speculated on the parentage of, turned out to be a nobody. This sparked huge ire, which remains to this day.It’s easy to see the parallels in this with Game of Thrones season 8. For Luke, see Daenerys Targaryen: the great hero who has a fall many believed to be completely out of character or at least unearned. For Snoke, there’s the Night King – an overarching, mysterious villain who is killed off sooner than anticipated, with little of his backstory revealed. Where there’s Rey’s parentage, there’s Jon Snow’s, as critics argue the confirmation that R+L=J did not amount to anything of significance. The major difference is that The Last Jedi’s reviews were mostly positive, whereas critics and audiences both disliked Game of Thrones season 8, but that only gives House of the Dragon even more difficult because it has more to build back against.When looking at how House of the Dragon can overcome the backlash to Game of Thrones season 8, then Disney’s response to Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a lesson in what not to do. With the major controversy then followed up by Solo: A Star Wars Story’s box office failure, the Mouse House went into full course correct mode with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. The returning J.J. Abrams brought back Emperor Palpatine, and decided to try and go against The Last Jedi. He brought back many of the elements The Last Jedi had either ignored or given answers many deemed unsatisfactory – Rey is now a Palpatine, Snoke is a clone, Luke Skywalker is a Force Ghost who does catch the lightsaber. Unfortunately, The Rise of Skywalker also ended up being a mess. It was a film so crammed full of retcons, of bringing back half-baked, long-forgotten ideas, and of fan service, as well as the sheer weight of trying to end a 40-year-old saga, that it ended up in a worst of both worlds scenario. The Last Jedi had already made things hard, but The Rise Of Skywalker ended up struggling to please either its fans or its detractors, only serving to make the backlash worse and more to Disney’s Star Wars sequel trilogy as a whole.Related: House Of The Dragon Trailer Hints At Connection To Night King’s DeathTo that sense, House of the Dragon moving beyond Game of Thrones’ own failings is perhaps an easier task. At the very least, it does not have to continue that specific story, and nor is it being challenged with wrapping-up a narrative that has been years in the making. Indeed, that was where Game of Thrones season 8 itself was charged with falling down, and so House of the Dragon does have something of a cleaner slate than any Star Wars movie coming after The Last Jedi could have had. Still, while it may be easier, that doesn’t make it easy. This is a show centered around House Targaryen, which means there will likely be the looming shadow of Daenerys Targaryen’s descent and death. It is still, after all, a show based on the same world as Game of Thrones, even if it is long before the likes of Jon Snow and Tyrion Lannister’s parents had been born, let alone them. House of the Dragon’s success will depend, to some degree at least, on how much people are willing to step back into this universe after Game of Thrones’ ending.It will have had the benefit of more time, with around three years by the time of House of the Dragon’s 2022 release from Game of Thrones’ series finale; that’s a contrast to the two years between The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker, which also had Solo sandwiched in between. The distance should help as well. As the House of the Dragon trailer shows, this series is far removed from Game of Thrones, and so people can – perhaps – put their ill-feeling towards the finale aside. That it comes from George R.R. Martin himself is a big bonus as well. No one received more criticism for Game of Thrones season 8 than showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, neither of whom are involved with this. As Martin has already written or at least fleshed out much of the story, then there’s less room for an adaptation to veer of course, and it can instead, hopefully, provide the kind of quality that made Game of Thrones so beloved in the first place. And that last point might be the most important.Despite problems with Game of Thrones season 8, it did not become a bad show because of a disappointing or divisive ending; for multiple seasons – mileage may vary on how many exactly – it was and still is one of the greatest TV shows produced, with a level of scale and spectacle hardly ever seen, but that is matched step-for-step by its writing, performances, and every other area. That’s the kind of thing people should come to remember, especially as time goes on, wounds heal, and rewatches begin, and which stands House of the Dragon in good stead. This is not a course correction for a hated property that needs to be fixed, but a prequel to an excellent show, that is also very much its own thing and should be judged on its own merits.Next: House Of The Dragon Trailer Breakdown: 17 Story Reveals & Secretsfrom ScreenRant – Feed https://ift.tt/3lhdvfJ https://ift.tt/3lf4CmG
After the backlash to Game of Thrones season 8, prequel show House of the Dragon will have to overcome a problem that’s similar to the one seen after Star Wars: The Last Jedi. When Game of Thrones ended in 2019, it did so as the biggest TV show in the world. Many had long expected it to go out in a blaze of glory, but instead it simply sparked fires across the internet; to say it was divisive would perhaps be an understatement, as the final run of episodes were mauled by critics and audiences alike.
HBO, however, is undeterred. Even before Game of Thrones ended, ideas for spinoffs set in Westeros and beyond were being explored, which will first come to fruition with House of the Dragon. The network has major plans for this universe, with multiple projects in various stages of development, but House of the Dragon will be the initial and biggest test not only of its viability as a true franchise, but of how much it has survived the backlash.
This puts House of the Dragon in the same position the Star Wars sequel trilogy found itself in, with The Last Jedi quickly becoming one of the most divisive movies of the 21st Century. While it’s not an exact parallel, given this is a prequel rather than a sequel, there are similar hurdles to overcome, and certainly mistakes to be avoided in terms of how it approaches things.
When Star Wars: The Last Jedi released in 2017, it soon became one of if not the most divisive entry in the entire saga, even accounting for the much-maligned prequel trilogy (which is now looked upon more favorably). There were a range of criticisms, but at the core of them was the idea that this fundamentally misunderstood or ruined what made Star Wars and its characters so great. Luke Skywalker, the greatest hero in the galaxy, was a hermit who not only wouldn’t join the fight, but had even been tempted to kill his nephew. Supreme Leader Snoke, the ostensible big bad of the sequel trilogy, was cut down without anything being revealed about his past. Rey, who many had speculated on the parentage of, turned out to be a nobody. This sparked huge ire, which remains to this day.
It’s easy to see the parallels in this with Game of Thrones season 8. For Luke, see Daenerys Targaryen: the great hero who has a fall many believed to be completely out of character or at least unearned. For Snoke, there’s the Night King – an overarching, mysterious villain who is killed off sooner than anticipated, with little of his backstory revealed. Where there’s Rey’s parentage, there’s Jon Snow’s, as critics argue the confirmation that R+L=J did not amount to anything of significance. The major difference is that The Last Jedi‘s reviews were mostly positive, whereas critics and audiences both disliked Game of Thrones season 8, but that only gives House of the Dragon even more difficult because it has more to build back against.
When looking at how House of the Dragon can overcome the backlash to Game of Thrones season 8, then Disney’s response to Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a lesson in what not to do. With the major controversy then followed up by Solo: A Star Wars Story‘s box office failure, the Mouse House went into full course correct mode with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. The returning J.J. Abrams brought back Emperor Palpatine, and decided to try and go against The Last Jedi. He brought back many of the elements The Last Jedi had either ignored or given answers many deemed unsatisfactory – Rey is now a Palpatine, Snoke is a clone, Luke Skywalker is a Force Ghost who does catch the lightsaber. Unfortunately, The Rise of Skywalker also ended up being a mess. It was a film so crammed full of retcons, of bringing back half-baked, long-forgotten ideas, and of fan service, as well as the sheer weight of trying to end a 40-year-old saga, that it ended up in a worst of both worlds scenario. The Last Jedi had already made things hard, but The Rise Of Skywalker ended up struggling to please either its fans or its detractors, only serving to make the backlash worse and more to Disney’s Star Wars sequel trilogy as a whole.
To that sense, House of the Dragon moving beyond Game of Thrones‘ own failings is perhaps an easier task. At the very least, it does not have to continue that specific story, and nor is it being challenged with wrapping-up a narrative that has been years in the making. Indeed, that was where Game of Thrones season 8 itself was charged with falling down, and so House of the Dragon does have something of a cleaner slate than any Star Wars movie coming after The Last Jedi could have had. Still, while it may be easier, that doesn’t make it easy. This is a show centered around House Targaryen, which means there will likely be the looming shadow of Daenerys Targaryen’s descent and death. It is still, after all, a show based on the same world as Game of Thrones, even if it is long before the likes of Jon Snow and Tyrion Lannister’s parents had been born, let alone them. House of the Dragon’s success will depend, to some degree at least, on how much people are willing to step back into this universe after Game of Thrones’ ending.
It will have had the benefit of more time, with around three years by the time of House of the Dragon’s 2022 release from Game of Thrones’ series finale; that’s a contrast to the two years between The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker, which also had Solo sandwiched in between. The distance should help as well. As the House of the Dragon trailer shows, this series is far removed from Game of Thrones, and so people can – perhaps – put their ill-feeling towards the finale aside. That it comes from George R.R. Martin himself is a big bonus as well. No one received more criticism for Game of Thrones season 8 than showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, neither of whom are involved with this. As Martin has already written or at least fleshed out much of the story, then there’s less room for an adaptation to veer of course, and it can instead, hopefully, provide the kind of quality that made Game of Thrones so beloved in the first place. And that last point might be the most important.
Despite problems with Game of Thrones season 8, it did not become a bad show because of a disappointing or divisive ending; for multiple seasons – mileage may vary on how many exactly – it was and still is one of the greatest TV shows produced, with a level of scale and spectacle hardly ever seen, but that is matched step-for-step by its writing, performances, and every other area. That’s the kind of thing people should come to remember, especially as time goes on, wounds heal, and rewatches begin, and which stands House of the Dragon in good stead. This is not a course correction for a hated property that needs to be fixed, but a prequel to an excellent show, that is also very much its own thing and should be judged on its own merits.
With No Time To Die already a blockbuster at the global box office, James Bond continues to be incredibly popular after 60 years. Created by Ian Fleming, who wrote 15 novels and several short stories about secret agent 007, James Bond was already well-known when EON Productions released the first Bond movie, Dr. No starring Sean Connery, in 1961. Since then, James Bond has become the longest-running movie franchise in history, and the British spy’s popularity continues unabated.James Bond was conceived as a product of his era; the character was born in the 1950s from Ian Fleming’s experiences as a naval intelligence officer during World War II. When Sean Connery first played 007 in the 1960s, he was an idealized man of his time: suave, irresistible to the opposite sex, but also ruthless and unafraid to use his license to kill as he saw fit. Connery set the mold for all of the James Bond actors who followed him but each one added to the mythos and to the character. George Lazenby was more laid back than Connery while Roger Moore played up his comedic charms for his seven films as James Bond from 1973-1985. Timothy Dalton brought back Bond’s grit for the action hero era of the 1980s while Pierce Brosnan combined his predecessors into a fusion of wit, sophistication, and violence as a world-saving hero.Daniel Craig’s tenure as James Bond elevated 007’s prestige to even greater heights. By playing Bond for 15 years, he’s the longest-serving actor in the role, and arguably the most popular since Sean Connery. Craig also redefined the role of James Bond by breaking from Connery’s mold while still honoring the character’s tropes. No Time To Die is Craig’s 007 swansong but the film is earning rave reviews and making bank at the box office despite being delayed several times due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It’s frankly amazing that James Bond continues to be so popular 60 years after he first debuted on movie screens. The James Bond fandom now spans generations and every James Bond actor is someone’s favorite 007. Yet beyond the suits, the martinis, the cars, the girls, and the action, there are deeper reasons why James Bond continues to be popular for the last 60 years, and likely for 60 more.One of the most memorable moments in 1995’s GoldenEye was when the new M (Judi Dench) dressed down James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) and called him “a sexist, misogynist dinosaur… a relic of the Cold War.” By the 1990s, this was indeed the public image of James Bond, which GoldenEye called out immediately. Criticism has been levied at 007 since the character’s creation, that the spy is an immoral womanizer, an alcoholic, a gun-toting government lackey who is no hero, and just an empty suit.However, James Bond has evolved through the decades and has been reinvented to suit each era and to fit the actor playing him. Sean Connery’s James Bond was the epitome of 1960s swagger and, frankly, sexism, although George Lazenby tried to give Bond some romantic sensitivity. Roger Moore made James Bond a hero for the outlandish 1970s, not taking things too seriously. Timothy Dalton ushered in a huge change for Bond in the 1980s where Bond stopped smoking cigarettes because it was now public knowledge that tobacco causes cancer, and Dalton also drastically reduced Bond’s womanizing. Pierce Brosnan then tried to bring back some of his predecessors’ excesses but he was very much an all-purpose action hero for the 1990s.Daniel Craig’s James Bond found his incredible success by being different, and not just because Craig has blond hair. While Craig’s 007 still drank vodka martinis and romances beautiful Bond Girls, his James Bond was a secret agent for today, a hero who would do whatever it took to do what’s right regardless of the personal cost. As each of his films proved, Craig’s 007 had the most well-rounded internal life, has suffered love and loss, and his movies delved into his origin so that audiences had a greater understanding of what makes James Bond tick than ever before.With Daniel Craig’s first Bond movie, Casino Royale, 007’s producers took a huge gamble by delivering a total reboot of the Bond movie franchise, but it paid off royally. Casino Royale was a completely new beginning that severed ties with the loose but sprawling canon established by the Bond movies that began with Sean Connery and ended with Pierce Brosnan’s 2002 Die Another Day. Instead, Casino Royale, with its black and white, ultraviolent opening sequence that showed Craig’s 007 earning his license to kill, ushered in a completely new era for James Bond that was phenomenally successful.The fact that Craig’s James Bond had his own continuity saved his version of 007 and his movies. Audiences were free to discover James Bond all over again, and newer fans didn’t have to worry about catching up on 20 prior movies to understand the secret agent and his adventures. Meanwhile, older Bond fans could revel in the changes Craig brought to the super spy while still maintaining the key tropes that make him James Bond. Craig’s five Bond movies also embraced serialization, which is so popular in the Peak TV era, so that all of his films, from Casino Royale to No Time To Die, told a complete story about Craig’s James Bond, with a definitive ending. As a result, Daniel Craig’s James Bond canon comfortably exists alongside the original 007 continuity so that every Bond fan can enjoy each version of 007 without fretting over retcons or violations of established canon.Daniel Craig’s James Bond movies were also an ideal fusion of 007 nostalgia with modern moviemaking. When fans think of James Bond, they visualize a perfectly tailored suit, a Walther PPK handgun, a vodka martini, and an Aston Martin DB5. Ingeniously, instead of arriving fully-formed, Craig’s Bond movies had 007 gradually earn all of his classic tropes, thereby making the old new again. For example, in Casino Royale, audiences got to see Bond invent his favorite martini, which he named after his love, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). By Skyfall, a new M (Ralph Fiennes), Miss Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), and Q (Ben Whishaw) were introduced, completing Bond’s classic supporting cast. 2015’s Spectre even rebooted Bond’s classic enemy, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Waltz), and made their rivalry personal.Every return or reinvention of James Bond’s classic tropes helped make Craig’s 007 movies feel more and more like the ultimate Bond, and audiences responded, not just with ticket sales but with a desire to mimic the Bond lifestyle. Craig’s James Bond movies largely wiped away the negative stigma around 007 that he was a “misogynist dinosaur.” Craig simply made 007 cool again, to men, women, and kids. All of this translated to Craig’s Bond becoming a global sensation at the box office, while EON Productions’ careful management of the 007 brand kept it from being diluted.One of the greatest masterstrokes of James Bond’s popularity is the incredibly careful and successful casting choices of each James Bond actor. Sean Connery was so perfect as Ian Fleming’s master spy brought to life that he remains the standard all others are judged, but every Bond actor was ideal in his own way. George Lazenby had difficulty filling Connery’s shoes but decades later, his lone 007 film, 1969’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, has been reconsidered and is now heralded as a top-level Bond film. Roger Moore’s reinvention of 007 for the 1970s was wildly successful while Timothy Dalton brought Bond closer to Ian Fleming’s original character and Pierce Brosnan’s dashing and bold 007 was a huge hit in the 1990s. While they are all very different actors, they each made James Bond their own and contributed to 007’s iconic status.To be sure, Daniel Craig’s success is instrumental in maintaining James Bond’s popularity in the 21st century. Craig’s films brought 007 into modern times and continuously deliver awe-inspiring action and spectacle, while Craig’s version of Bond has a deeper, conflicted inner life that audiences connect with and leads James to rise to heroism time and again. Craig’s British spy is immensely popular with both male and female audiences and, for this generation, Daniel Craig has become the definitive James Bond. The next actor to succeed Daniel Craig in the role after No Time To Die will certainly have a tough act to follow but, as 007 history has proven, James Bond will continue to evolve with the times and his popularity will likely continue for another 60 years.
With No Time To Die already a blockbuster at the global box office, James Bond continues to be incredibly popular after 60 years. Created by Ian Fleming, who wrote 15 novels and several short stories about secret agent 007, James Bond was already well-known when EON Productions released the first Bond movie, Dr. No starring Sean Connery, in 1961. Since then, James Bond has become the longest-running movie franchise in history, and the British spy’s popularity continues unabated.
James Bond was conceived as a product of his era; the character was born in the 1950s from Ian Fleming’s experiences as a naval intelligence officer during World War II. When Sean Connery first played 007 in the 1960s, he was an idealized man of his time: suave, irresistible to the opposite sex, but also ruthless and unafraid to use his license to kill as he saw fit. Connery set the mold for all of the James Bond actors who followed him but each one added to the mythos and to the character. George Lazenby was more laid back than Connery while Roger Moore played up his comedic charms for his seven films as James Bond from 1973-1985. Timothy Dalton brought back Bond’s grit for the action hero era of the 1980s while Pierce Brosnan combined his predecessors into a fusion of wit, sophistication, and violence as a world-saving hero.
Daniel Craig’s tenure as James Bond elevated 007’s prestige to even greater heights. By playing Bond for 15 years, he’s the longest-serving actor in the role, and arguably the most popular since Sean Connery. Craig also redefined the role of James Bond by breaking from Connery’s mold while still honoring the character’s tropes. No Time To Die is Craig’s 007 swansong but the film is earning rave reviews and making bank at the box office despite being delayed several times due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It’s frankly amazing that James Bond continues to be so popular 60 years after he first debuted on movie screens. The James Bond fandom now spans generations and every James Bond actor is someone’s favorite 007. Yet beyond the suits, the martinis, the cars, the girls, and the action, there are deeper reasons why James Bond continues to be popular for the last 60 years, and likely for 60 more.
One of the most memorable moments in 1995’s GoldenEye was when the new M (Judi Dench) dressed down James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) and called him “a sexist, misogynist dinosaur… a relic of the Cold War.” By the 1990s, this was indeed the public image of James Bond, which GoldenEye called out immediately. Criticism has been levied at 007 since the character’s creation, that the spy is an immoral womanizer, an alcoholic, a gun-toting government lackey who is no hero, and just an empty suit.
However, James Bond has evolved through the decades and has been reinvented to suit each era and to fit the actor playing him. Sean Connery’s James Bond was the epitome of 1960s swagger and, frankly, sexism, although George Lazenby tried to give Bond some romantic sensitivity. Roger Moore made James Bond a hero for the outlandish 1970s, not taking things too seriously. Timothy Dalton ushered in a huge change for Bond in the 1980s where Bond stopped smoking cigarettes because it was now public knowledge that tobacco causes cancer, and Dalton also drastically reduced Bond’s womanizing. Pierce Brosnan then tried to bring back some of his predecessors’ excesses but he was very much an all-purpose action hero for the 1990s.
Daniel Craig’s James Bond found his incredible success by being different, and not just because Craig has blond hair. While Craig’s 007 still drank vodka martinis and romances beautiful Bond Girls, his James Bond was a secret agent for today, a hero who would do whatever it took to do what’s right regardless of the personal cost. As each of his films proved, Craig’s 007 had the most well-rounded internal life, has suffered love and loss, and his movies delved into his origin so that audiences had a greater understanding of what makes James Bond tick than ever before.
With Daniel Craig’s first Bond movie, Casino Royale, 007’s producers took a huge gamble by delivering a total reboot of the Bond movie franchise, but it paid off royally. Casino Royale was a completely new beginning that severed ties with the loose but sprawling canon established by the Bond movies that began with Sean Connery and ended with Pierce Brosnan’s 2002 Die Another Day. Instead, Casino Royale, with its black and white, ultraviolent opening sequence that showed Craig’s 007 earning his license to kill, ushered in a completely new era for James Bond that was phenomenally successful.
The fact that Craig’s James Bond had his own continuity saved his version of 007 and his movies. Audiences were free to discover James Bond all over again, and newer fans didn’t have to worry about catching up on 20 prior movies to understand the secret agent and his adventures. Meanwhile, older Bond fans could revel in the changes Craig brought to the super spy while still maintaining the key tropes that make him James Bond. Craig’s five Bond movies also embraced serialization, which is so popular in the Peak TV era, so that all of his films, from Casino Royale to No Time To Die, told a complete story about Craig’s James Bond, with a definitive ending. As a result, Daniel Craig’s James Bond canon comfortably exists alongside the original 007 continuity so that every Bond fan can enjoy each version of 007 without fretting over retcons or violations of established canon.
Daniel Craig’s James Bond movies were also an ideal fusion of 007 nostalgia with modern moviemaking. When fans think of James Bond, they visualize a perfectly tailored suit, a Walther PPK handgun, a vodka martini, and an Aston Martin DB5. Ingeniously, instead of arriving fully-formed, Craig’s Bond movies had 007 gradually earn all of his classic tropes, thereby making the old new again. For example, in Casino Royale, audiences got to see Bond invent his favorite martini, which he named after his love, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). By Skyfall, a new M (Ralph Fiennes), Miss Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), and Q (Ben Whishaw) were introduced, completing Bond’s classic supporting cast. 2015’s Spectre even rebooted Bond’s classic enemy, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Waltz), and made their rivalry personal.
Every return or reinvention of James Bond’s classic tropes helped make Craig’s 007 movies feel more and more like the ultimate Bond, and audiences responded, not just with ticket sales but with a desire to mimic the Bond lifestyle. Craig’s James Bond movies largely wiped away the negative stigma around 007 that he was a “misogynist dinosaur.” Craig simply made 007 cool again, to men, women, and kids. All of this translated to Craig’s Bond becoming a global sensation at the box office, while EON Productions’ careful management of the 007 brand kept it from being diluted.
One of the greatest masterstrokes of James Bond’s popularity is the incredibly careful and successful casting choices of each James Bond actor. Sean Connery was so perfect as Ian Fleming’s master spy brought to life that he remains the standard all others are judged, but every Bond actor was ideal in his own way. George Lazenby had difficulty filling Connery’s shoes but decades later, his lone 007 film, 1969’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, has been reconsidered and is now heralded as a top-level Bond film. Roger Moore’s reinvention of 007 for the 1970s was wildly successful while Timothy Dalton brought Bond closer to Ian Fleming’s original character and Pierce Brosnan’s dashing and bold 007 was a huge hit in the 1990s. While they are all very different actors, they each made James Bond their own and contributed to 007’s iconic status.
To be sure, Daniel Craig’s success is instrumental in maintaining James Bond’s popularity in the 21st century. Craig’s films brought 007 into modern times and continuously deliver awe-inspiring action and spectacle, while Craig’s version of Bond has a deeper, conflicted inner life that audiences connect with and leads James to rise to heroism time and again. Craig’s British spy is immensely popular with both male and female audiences and, for this generation, Daniel Craig has become the definitive James Bond. The next actor to succeed Daniel Craig in the role after No Time To Diewill certainly have a tough act to follow but, as 007 history has proven, James Bond will continue to evolve with the times and his popularity will likely continue for another 60 years.
James Bond producers defend maligned series entry Quantum of Solace. The direct sequel to 2006’s Casino Royale found Daniel Craig’s 007 out for revenge after the death of his lover Vesper Lynd.Unfortunately while Casino Royale was almost universally praised, Quantum of Solace found itself being battered by critics and Bond fans alike, and is now the consensus pick for worst movie of the Craig era of Bond. Indeed Craig himself recently talked about the disappointing Casino Royale follow-up, calling the process of making it a “s—tshow.” Thankfully the Bond series would recover with the critically praised blockbuster Skyfall, followed by the financially successful Spectre.Quantum of Solace may be something of a black sheep among Craig-era James Bond films but not everyone is lining up to bash the movie. In fact, Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson recently spoke up to defend the work, explaining to /Film why they think the movie is an important one in the development of Craig’s Bond portrayal. Broccoli said:”I’m really proud of the movie. I think it’s part of the whole evolution of Bond. And I think after ‘Casino Royale,’ when he shuts down emotionally, the next step was going out for revenge. I think the story of that film is that revenge is an empty challenge. You don’t get any benefit from revenge. So I think it’s important in the whole history of the evolution of this character. I’m very proud of it for sure.”Unfortunately for Broccoli the intended meaning of Quantum of Solace may have gotten lost amid the so-called “s—tshow” the movie ultimately became. A catalog of exactly what went wrong on the Casino Royale follow-up of course begins with the unfortunate fact that the film went before cameras without a polished script due to the writers’ strike going on at the time. Fans have also pointed to the movie’s revenge angle as a problem – despite Wilson and Broccoli apparently thinking the revenge plot was actually a good idea. Another issue that crops up in discussions about Quantum of Solace is that Mathieu Amalric’s villain is a weak one compared to other Bond baddies. It can also be argued that Marc Forster was a poor choice to direct the movie, especially after Martin Campbell did such a solid job on Casino Royale.It is also interesting that after Quantum of Solace the Bond franchise did undergo several adjustments, including the arrival of Sam Mendes to direct Skyfall, and in Spectre the introduction of a tweaked version of classic Bond villain Blofeld. So it’s clear that while Broccoli and Wilson may have personally liked the direction things were taken in Quantum of Solace, they also recognized the need to change course in subsequent movies. Which just goes to show that the stewards of the Bond franchise are plenty wise when it comes to reading audience reaction and making needed changes. And thanks to these adjustments, the Bond series was able to build to the big climax promised in the about-to-be-released No Time to Die. So Quantum of Solace may be a black sheep among Bond films, but its failure at least taught producers some valuable lessons they were able to use later, making the Bond series better overall.
James Bond producers defend maligned series entry Quantum of Solace. The direct sequel to 2006’s Casino Royale found Daniel Craig’s 007 out for revenge after the death of his lover Vesper Lynd.
Unfortunately while Casino Royale was almost universally praised, Quantum of Solace found itself being battered by critics and Bond fans alike, and is now the consensus pick for worst movie of the Craig era of Bond. Indeed Craig himself recently talked about the disappointing Casino Royale follow-up, calling the process of making it a “s—tshow.” Thankfully the Bond series would recover with the critically praised blockbuster Skyfall, followed by the financially successful Spectre.
Quantum of Solace may be something of a black sheep among Craig-era James Bond films but not everyone is lining up to bash the movie. In fact, Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson recently spoke up to defend the work, explaining to /Film why they think the movie is an important one in the development of Craig’s Bond portrayal. Broccoli said:
“I’m really proud of the movie. I think it’s part of the whole evolution of Bond. And I think after ‘Casino Royale,’ when he shuts down emotionally, the next step was going out for revenge. I think the story of that film is that revenge is an empty challenge. You don’t get any benefit from revenge. So I think it’s important in the whole history of the evolution of this character. I’m very proud of it for sure.”
Unfortunately for Broccoli the intended meaning of Quantum of Solace may have gotten lost amid the so-called “s—tshow” the movie ultimately became. A catalog of exactly what went wrong on the Casino Royale follow-up of course begins with the unfortunate fact that the film went before cameras without a polished script due to the writers’ strike going on at the time. Fans have also pointed to the movie’s revenge angle as a problem – despite Wilson and Broccoli apparently thinking the revenge plot was actually a good idea. Another issue that crops up in discussions about Quantum of Solace is that Mathieu Amalric’s villain is a weak one compared to other Bond baddies. It can also be argued that Marc Forster was a poor choice to direct the movie, especially after Martin Campbell did such a solid job on Casino Royale.
It is also interesting that after Quantum of Solace the Bond franchise did undergo several adjustments, including the arrival of Sam Mendes to direct Skyfall, and in Spectre the introduction of a tweaked version of classic Bond villain Blofeld. So it’s clear that while Broccoli and Wilson may have personally liked the direction things were taken in Quantum of Solace, they also recognized the need to change course in subsequent movies. Which just goes to show that the stewards of the Bond franchise are plenty wise when it comes to reading audience reaction and making needed changes. And thanks to these adjustments, the Bond series was able to build to the big climax promised in the about-to-be-released No Time to Die. So Quantum of Solace may be a black sheep among Bond films, but its failure at least taught producers some valuable lessons they were able to use later, making the Bond series better overall.
Watching any meteor shower can be loads of fun, and thanks to the incoming ‘Arids’ shower, some people will have a spectacular opportunity to watch it make its first ever appearance on Earth. It’s no secret that outer space is one of the most fascinating things around. It’s a never-ending canvas of mystery and wonder. Whether it be planets in our own Solar System or galaxies millions of light-years away, there’s always something new to learn about the great beyond.While deep space and research have to be left to the professionals, that’s not to say the rest of us can’t also make our own observations. A prime example of this is meteor showers. Throughout the year, numerous asteroids and meteorites hurtle through space, get sucked into Earth’s atmosphere, and soar through the sky. If someone is in the right place at the right time, they can see these visiting space rocks with their very own eyes. Some are easy to miss, others are jaw-dropping, and there are multiple chances to see one for yourself.Along with the many meteor showers that occur every single year, astronomers are now preparing for a meteor shower that’s never been seen on Earth before. The shower is known as the ‘Arids.’ The name comes from the Ara constellation where the meteors originated, and while they were initially spotted by The SETI Institute on September 30, the inaugural shower isn’t expected to peak until Thursday, October 7. Astronomers predicted the Arids shower all the way back in 1995 by studying ejected particles from Comet 15P/Finlay, but it isn’t until now that it’s been visible.It’s not very often people get to witness a new meteor shower being born, but with Arids, that’s exactly what’s happening. It’s already been added to the IAU Working List of Meteor Showers — proudly carrying the code ARD and an identifying number of 1130. It remains unclear if and when Arids will return following its visit on October 7, but regardless, this is an incredible opportunity that shouldn’t be missed.For folks interested in watching Arids’ grand debut for themselves, the bad news is that it will be fairly limited. The folks at Space.com confirm it’ll only be visible from the Southern Hemisphere, with the best viewing locations including New Zealand, Argentina, and Chile. The shower will also be quite small and slow, meaning proper viewing equipment is a must to get the full experience. For anyone who does happen to be in those areas, look for the shower around 00:35 UT and 03:55 UT on October 7.It is disappointing that folks in the Northern Hemisphere have to sit this one out, but it’s also important to remember that this isn’t the only meteor shower to keep an eye on. The annual Draconid shower is expected to peak early in the morning on October 8, offering a gorgeous view of additional space rocks. Whether you’re in a position to watch Arids or Draconid, be safe, have plenty of time to get comfy, and enjoy the upcoming shows!
Watching any meteor shower can be loads of fun, and thanks to the incoming ‘Arids’ shower, some people will have a spectacular opportunity to watch it make its first ever appearance on Earth. It’s no secret that outer space is one of the most fascinating things around. It’s a never-ending canvas of mystery and wonder. Whether it be planets in our own Solar System or galaxies millions of light-years away, there’s always something new to learn about the great beyond.
While deep space and research have to be left to the professionals, that’s not to say the rest of us can’t also make our own observations. A prime example of this is meteor showers. Throughout the year, numerous asteroids and meteorites hurtle through space, get sucked into Earth’s atmosphere, and soar through the sky. If someone is in the right place at the right time, they can see these visiting space rocks with their very own eyes. Some are easy to miss, others are jaw-dropping, and there are multiple chances to see one for yourself.
Along with the many meteor showers that occur every single year, astronomers are now preparing for a meteor shower that’s never been seen on Earth before. The shower is known as the ‘Arids.’ The name comes from the Ara constellation where the meteors originated, and while they were initially spotted by The SETI Institute on September 30, the inaugural shower isn’t expected to peak until Thursday, October 7. Astronomers predicted the Arids shower all the way back in 1995 by studying ejected particles from Comet 15P/Finlay, but it isn’t until now that it’s been visible.
It’s not very often people get to witness a new meteor shower being born, but with Arids, that’s exactly what’s happening. It’s already been added to the IAU Working List of Meteor Showers — proudly carrying the code ARD and an identifying number of 1130. It remains unclear if and when Arids will return following its visit on October 7, but regardless, this is an incredible opportunity that shouldn’t be missed.
For folks interested in watching Arids’ grand debut for themselves, the bad news is that it will be fairly limited. The folks at Space.com confirm it’ll only be visible from the Southern Hemisphere, with the best viewing locations including New Zealand, Argentina, and Chile. The shower will also be quite small and slow, meaning proper viewing equipment is a must to get the full experience. For anyone who does happen to be in those areas, look for the shower around 00:35 UT and 03:55 UT on October 7.
It is disappointing that folks in the Northern Hemisphere have to sit this one out, but it’s also important to remember that this isn’t the only meteor shower to keep an eye on. The annual Draconid shower is expected to peak early in the morning on October 8, offering a gorgeous view of additional space rocks. Whether you’re in a position to watch Arids or Draconid, be safe, have plenty of time to get comfy, and enjoy the upcoming shows!
Nuclear Blaze is an upcoming 2D action platformer that puts players in the role of a firefighter tasked with putting out radioactive flames – and rescuing cute cats along the way. It is being developed by Deepnight Games, who impressed gamers with 2017’s corpse-possessing roguelike Dead Cells. Dead Cells would go on to inspire plenty of indie Metroid-like titles such as last year’s Forgone, and a DLC expansion subtitled Fatal Falls was released back in January.Last month, Deepnight announced its newest 2D side-scrolling adventure Nuclear Blaze, which is currently set to launch on Steam on October 18. As a firefighter who is airdropped inside a secret underground military facility, players will have to explore Metroid-style levels as they work to extinguish constantly spreading fires by aiming their trusty fire hose in any direction they please, investigate the source of the ongoing inferno, and even engage in the time-honored firefighter’s tradition of rescuing cats. Nuclear Blaze features the smooth controls of Dead Cells (as designed by former Motion Twin associate Sébastien Benard), a designated “Kid Mode” for younger players, and multiple unique levels packed with hidden secrets and side-stories as players unravel the mystery behind the shady military complex.Related: Dead Cells: Practice Makes Perfect Guide (Everything You Need To Know)Nuclear Blaze looks to be a fun take on the classic Metroidvania formula of exploring large maze-like dungeons packed with hidden secrets and Easter Eggs. This formula can also be seen in the critically acclaimed Metroid Dread, which will release on October 8th. Firefighting is a relatively unexplored profession among recent video games save for a few simulators, so this title will hopefully stand out from the Metroidvania crowd. Players will be able to strap on their fire hoses, put out a few loose flames and even rescue some adorable kitties when Nuclear Blaze launches on Steam on October 18.Next: Roguelike vs. Roguelite: What’s the Difference?Source: Deepnight Games, Steamfrom ScreenRant – Feed https://ift.tt/3iDS5aO https://ift.tt/3iFzI5r
Nuclear Blaze is an upcoming 2D action platformer that puts players in the role of a firefighter tasked with putting out radioactive flames – and rescuing cute cats along the way. It is being developed by Deepnight Games, who impressed gamers with 2017’s corpse-possessing roguelike Dead Cells. Dead Cells would go on to inspire plenty of indie Metroid-like titles such as last year’s Forgone, and a DLC expansion subtitled Fatal Falls was released back in January.
Last month, Deepnight announced its newest 2D side-scrolling adventure Nuclear Blaze, which is currently set to launch on Steam on October 18. As a firefighter who is airdropped inside a secret underground military facility, players will have to explore Metroid-style levels as they work to extinguish constantly spreading fires by aiming their trusty fire hose in any direction they please, investigate the source of the ongoing inferno, and even engage in the time-honored firefighter’s tradition of rescuing cats. Nuclear Blaze features the smooth controls of Dead Cells (as designed by former Motion Twin associate Sébastien Benard), a designated “Kid Mode” for younger players, and multiple unique levels packed with hidden secrets and side-stories as players unravel the mystery behind the shady military complex.
Nuclear Blaze looks to be a fun take on the classic Metroidvania formula of exploring large maze-like dungeons packed with hidden secrets and Easter Eggs. This formula can also be seen in the critically acclaimed Metroid Dread, which will release on October 8th. Firefighting is a relatively unexplored profession among recent video games save for a few simulators, so this title will hopefully stand out from the Metroidvania crowd. Players will be able to strap on their fire hoses, put out a few loose flames and even rescue some adorable kitties when Nuclear Blaze launches on Steam on October 18.
