image credit:NetflixNetflix is today officially launching a new feature for its Android users that will make it easier to find something to watch when you can’t make a decision. The feature, called “Play Something,” is a shuffle mode option that will play another movie or show Netflix believes you may like, based on your interests and your prior viewing behavior.These selections may include a movie or show you’re already watching but haven’t completed, a movie or show on your watch list or a brand-new series or film that Netflix’s personalization algorithms suggest, among other things.The feature had been in development for some time before its public release. Last year, for example, Netflix was testing it as “Shuffle Play.” And in its Q4 2020 earnings, Netflix said it would roll out its shuffle mode to users worldwide during the first half of 2021, describing it as a way to “instantly watch a title” that was chosen just for the user.That rollout schedule was partially realized.“Play Something,” as the feature was rebranded to, officially launched to worldwide users on Netflix’s TV app back in April. Here, the option can be found in several places, including on the profile selection screen underneath your profile name, on the navigation menu to the left of your screen and on the tenth row on your Netflix homepage — a location that’s meant to appear right at the point where you’re beginning to get frustrated with browsing and may have otherwise exited the app. In addition, Netflix users with screen-readers could also use Text-to-Speech (TTS) to use “Play Something.”The company said at the time it would soon start testing the feature on mobile devices, starting with Android. It then began those tests in late May.In other words, you may very well have had the feature on your own Android device long before this “official” debut — but not all Netflix users globally have been able to try it yet.That’s now changing, as Netflix is officially bringing “Play Something” to all Android mobile devices worldwide, with the rollout that starts today. The company says it will test the feature on iOS in the “coming months.”On mobile, the “Play Something” button hovers over the content at the bottom of the phone’s screen as you scroll and also has its own dedicated tab in the app.User response to the addition, so far, has been positive, Netflix noted — even pointing to a few tweets where people praised the feature.But for Netflix, the shuffle mode feature isn’t only about giving users another, easier way to watch — it’s a means of retaining users in the app before they jump to another entertainment option, whether that’s a rival streamer or even a social media app for video, like TikTok.In fact, the threat from short-form video is serious enough that Netflix recently built its own TikTok-like feature for its mobile app called “Fast Laughs,” which shows a feed of comedy videos meant to drive users to its content. Putting harder numbers to this potential threat, TikTok, at an event last week, noted that 35% of its users were watching less TV due to TikTok, citing data from its own research.“Play Something” joins other newer additions as well, including a smart downloads feature called “Downloads for You” and support for partial play downloads, as well as last year’s addition of the Top 10 list.
image credit:Netflix
Netflix is today officially launching a new feature for its Android users that will make it easier to find something to watch when you can’t make a decision. The feature, called “Play Something,” is a shuffle mode option that will play another movie or show Netflix believes you may like, based on your interests and your prior viewing behavior.
These selections may include a movie or show you’re already watching but haven’t completed, a movie or show on your watch list or a brand-new series or film that Netflix’s personalization algorithms suggest, among other things.
The feature had been in development for some time before its public release. Last year, for example, Netflix was testing it as “Shuffle Play.” And in its Q4 2020 earnings, Netflix said it would roll out its shuffle mode to users worldwide during the first half of 2021, describing it as a way to “instantly watch a title” that was chosen just for the user.
That rollout schedule was partially realized.
“Play Something,” as the feature was rebranded to, officially launched to worldwide users on Netflix’s TV app back in April. Here, the option can be found in several places, including on the profile selection screen underneath your profile name, on the navigation menu to the left of your screen and on the tenth row on your Netflix homepage — a location that’s meant to appear right at the point where you’re beginning to get frustrated with browsing and may have otherwise exited the app. In addition, Netflix users with screen-readers could also use Text-to-Speech (TTS) to use “Play Something.”
The company said at the time it would soon start testing the feature on mobile devices, starting with Android. It then began those tests in late May.
In other words, you may very well have had the feature on your own Android device long before this “official” debut — but not all Netflix users globally have been able to try it yet.
That’s now changing, as Netflix is officially bringing “Play Something” to all Android mobile devices worldwide, with the rollout that starts today. The company says it will test the feature on iOS in the “coming months.”
On mobile, the “Play Something” button hovers over the content at the bottom of the phone’s screen as you scroll and also has its own dedicated tab in the app.
User response to the addition, so far, has been positive, Netflix noted — even pointing to a few tweets where people praised the feature.
But for Netflix, the shuffle mode feature isn’t only about giving users another, easier way to watch — it’s a means of retaining users in the app before they jump to another entertainment option, whether that’s a rival streamer or even a social media app for video, like TikTok.
In fact, the threat from short-form video is serious enough that Netflix recently built its own TikTok-like feature for its mobile app called “Fast Laughs,” which shows a feed of comedy videos meant to drive users to its content. Putting harder numbers to this potential threat, TikTok, at an event last week, noted that 35% of its users were watching less TV due to TikTok, citing data from its own research.
“Play Something” joins other newer additions as well, including a smart downloads feature called “Downloads for You” and support for partial play downloads, as well as last year’s addition of the Top 10 list.
Freelance marketplace Fiverr announced this morning that it’s acquiring Seattle-based online learning company CreativeLive for an undisclosed amount. CreativeLive is an entrepreneurial learning platform where users can attend courses on video, photography, design, business, marketing and more.Fiverr, which is an online marketplace that connects businesses with on-demand freelancers, says that the ability to gain new skills in a changing work environment is part of its role in leading transformation for buyers and sellers on its platform.“Fiverr is more than just a work platform, we fundamentally believe in supporting the entire freelance lifestyle, and that includes professional education and training,” said Fiverr founder and CEO Micha Kaufman in a statement. “The acquisition of CreativeLive is part of this broader strategy. The depth and caliber of the courses that CreativeLive offers are exceptional and we look forward to offering them to our entire community.”The company notes that CreativeLive’s instructors include a diverse group of Pulitzer Prize, Grammy and Oscar winners, along with New York Times best-selling authors and notable entrepreneurs. Fiverr states that CreativeLive’s expertise in creating compelling learning experiences is a natural fit for its platform.CreativeLive will remain a standalone service and grow its team from its current headquarters in Seattle. Fiverr’s current online learning platform, Fiverr Learn, will be folded into CreativeLive as it works to expand its offerings following the acquisition.“The future favors people and companies that can create, innovate and adapt to a fast-paced, work environment,” said CreativeLive founder and CEO Chase Jarvis in a statement. “We are excited to be part of the Fiverr family and to grow our inventory of compelling courses that increase economic opportunity for our community, the Fiverr community and today’s modern workforce.”CreativeLive was founded in 2010 with the aim to “sit at the intersection of the future of creativity, learning, and of work” and to fill the gap that exists in online courses for creative professionals. Since then, the company has offered over 2,000 classes that have reached over 10 million users.Fiverr, which was also founded in 2010, says four million customers bought services from freelancers on its platform across more than 160 countries in its latest fiscal year. Additionally, the company filed to go public on the NYSE in 2019.Earlier this year, Fiverr expanded beyond project-based payments with the launch of three- or six-month subscriptions. Through this feature, sellers on Fiverr can offer to provide a defined set of work each month. The buyer or seller can cancel at any time without having to pay fees on the remaining months of the subscription
Freelance marketplace Fiverr announced this morning that it’s acquiring Seattle-based online learning company CreativeLive for an undisclosed amount. CreativeLive is an entrepreneurial learning platform where users can attend courses on video, photography, design, business, marketing and more.
Fiverr, which is an online marketplace that connects businesses with on-demand freelancers, says that the ability to gain new skills in a changing work environment is part of its role in leading transformation for buyers and sellers on its platform.
“Fiverr is more than just a work platform, we fundamentally believe in supporting the entire freelance lifestyle, and that includes professional education and training,” said Fiverr founder and CEO Micha Kaufman in a statement. “The acquisition of CreativeLive is part of this broader strategy. The depth and caliber of the courses that CreativeLive offers are exceptional and we look forward to offering them to our entire community.”
The company notes that CreativeLive’s instructors include a diverse group of Pulitzer Prize, Grammy and Oscar winners, along with New York Times best-selling authors and notable entrepreneurs. Fiverr states that CreativeLive’s expertise in creating compelling learning experiences is a natural fit for its platform.
CreativeLive will remain a standalone service and grow its team from its current headquarters in Seattle. Fiverr’s current online learning platform, Fiverr Learn, will be folded into CreativeLive as it works to expand its offerings following the acquisition.
“The future favors people and companies that can create, innovate and adapt to a fast-paced, work environment,” said CreativeLive founder and CEO Chase Jarvis in a statement. “We are excited to be part of the Fiverr family and to grow our inventory of compelling courses that increase economic opportunity for our community, the Fiverr community and today’s modern workforce.”
CreativeLive was founded in 2010 with the aim to “sit at the intersection of the future of creativity, learning, and of work” and to fill the gap that exists in online courses for creative professionals. Since then, the company has offered over 2,000 classes that have reached over 10 million users.
Fiverr, which was also founded in 2010, says four million customers bought services from freelancers on its platform across more than 160 countries in its latest fiscal year. Additionally, the company filed to go public on the NYSE in 2019.
Earlier this year, Fiverr expanded beyond project-based payments with the launch of three- or six-month subscriptions. Through this feature, sellers on Fiverr can offer to provide a defined set of work each month. The buyer or seller can cancel at any time without having to pay fees on the remaining months of the subscription
Apple’s newsroom and leadership pages are both currently experiencing some errors, leading to the appearance of some changes to Apple’s leadership.From our knowledge, Apple’s leadership and newsroom pages have been throwing up errors for the past two hours or so, and it seems to be that Apple is making server-side changes. In an oddity of those changes, Apple mistakenly listed Phil Schiller as Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide marketing, a role he stepped down from in August of last year to become an Apple Fellow. Apple moments later took down Schiller’s biography and the entirety of the leadership page.Apple’s newsroom is where the company issues press releases, updates, and more, while the leadership page lists all of Apple’s executives. No other pages on Apple’s website currently seem to be impacted, and it remains unclear whether this is simply an error or telling of something more coming soon. We’ll update this post when there are any changes.Update: Moments after we published this article, Apple’s newsroom and leadership pages were reverted back to their normal states, correctly listing Greg Joswiak as the SVP of marketing and Phil Schiller as an Apple Fellow.
Apple’s newsroom and leadership pages are both currently experiencing some errors, leading to the appearance of some changes to Apple’s leadership.
From our knowledge, Apple’s leadership and newsroom pages have been throwing up errors for the past two hours or so, and it seems to be that Apple is making server-side changes. In an oddity of those changes, Apple mistakenly listed Phil Schiller as Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide marketing, a role he stepped down from in August of last year to become an Apple Fellow. Apple moments later took down Schiller’s biography and the entirety of the leadership page.
Apple’s newsroom is where the company issues press releases, updates, and more, while the leadership page lists all of Apple’s executives. No other pages on Apple’s website currently seem to be impacted, and it remains unclear whether this is simply an error or telling of something more coming soon. We’ll update this post when there are any changes.
Update: Moments after we published this article, Apple’s newsroom and leadership pages were reverted back to their normal states, correctly listing Greg Joswiak as the SVP of marketing and Phil Schiller as an Apple Fellow.
Robert Pattinson’s Batman is a badass, says The Batman star Jeffery Wright. The upcoming DC Extended Universe film from director Matt Reeves (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) is the first to feature Pattinson’s version of the iconic superhero. After suffering from pandemic-related delays that caused principal photography to take a year, The Batman will release on March 4, 2022.The coveted role of Bruce Wayne had been solely occupied in the DCEU by Ben Affleck, who was originally set to not only star in The Batman, but write and direct as well. When Reeves took over, he expressed a desire to explore a younger version of the character, and Affleck left the project in early 2019. Pattinson’s casting was somewhat of a surprise, since he had largely avoided blockbuster roles after his experience on the Twilight films, becoming known in the meantime as a highly acclaimed, versatile performer in the indie scene.In an interview with ET, Wright, who plays Gotham PD’s James Gordon in The Batman, gives the English actor’s version of the Dark Knight his seal of approval. He describes Pattinson’s personal performance style as meshing well with Reeves’ directorial vision, which should make for a quality final product. Wright also says he thoroughly enjoyed their time on screen together:”Robert is gonna do his thing, and we were working within a Matt Reeves vision, so you know, Robert is doing what Robert does and it’s gonna be pretty badass I think. […] I loved working with him, I love his take and his energy and the way that he kind of brought different levels to different parts of the story. And we work off of one another”.Pattinson is reportedly playing Batman in just his second year of vigilantism, and from the promotional material released so far, Reeves’ film looks to be taking the character to particularly dark places. Paul Dano’s serial-killer take on Riddler seems to be the movie’s main villain, though several of Gotham’s big-bads are on the cast list, including Catwoman (Zoë Kravitz), Penguin (Colin Farrell), and Carmine Falcone (John Turturro). Wright becomes the first actor of color to portray Batman’s ally in the police department, while Reeves’ former Planet of the Apes collaborator Andy Serkis plays Bruce’s loyal butler, Alfred Pennyworth.As is customary whenever a new Batman is cast, fans are divided, and not just because many still associate Pattinson with sparkly vampires. The release of Zack Snyder’s Justice League reignited appreciation for Affleck’s interpretation of the character, and that the effects of Warner Bros. decision to abandon Snyder’s vision for the DCEU are so obvious in this film might create an inherent bias against it. However, Reeves’ track record and the immense talent he’s assembled in front of the camera, Pattinson especially, suggest The Batman has a real chance of overcoming these reservations.Source: ET
Robert Pattinson’s Batman is a badass, says The Batman star Jeffery Wright. The upcoming DC Extended Universe film from director Matt Reeves (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) is the first to feature Pattinson’s version of the iconic superhero. After suffering from pandemic-related delays that caused principal photography to take a year, The Batman will release on March 4, 2022.
The coveted role of Bruce Wayne had been solely occupied in the DCEU by Ben Affleck, who was originally set to not only star in The Batman, but write and direct as well. When Reeves took over, he expressed a desire to explore a younger version of the character, and Affleck left the project in early 2019. Pattinson’s casting was somewhat of a surprise, since he had largely avoided blockbuster roles after his experience on the Twilight films, becoming known in the meantime as a highly acclaimed, versatile performer in the indie scene.
In an interview with ET, Wright, who plays Gotham PD’s James Gordon in The Batman, gives the English actor’s version of the Dark Knight his seal of approval. He describes Pattinson’s personal performance style as meshing well with Reeves’ directorial vision, which should make for a quality final product. Wright also says he thoroughly enjoyed their time on screen together:
“Robert is gonna do his thing, and we were working within a Matt Reeves vision, so you know, Robert is doing what Robert does and it’s gonna be pretty badass I think. […] I loved working with him, I love his take and his energy and the way that he kind of brought different levels to different parts of the story. And we work off of one another”.
Pattinson is reportedly playing Batman in just his second year of vigilantism, and from the promotional material released so far, Reeves’ film looks to be taking the character to particularly dark places. Paul Dano’s serial-killer take on Riddler seems to be the movie’s main villain, though several of Gotham’s big-bads are on the cast list, including Catwoman (Zoë Kravitz), Penguin (Colin Farrell), and Carmine Falcone (John Turturro). Wright becomes the first actor of color to portray Batman’s ally in the police department, while Reeves’ former Planet of the Apes collaborator Andy Serkis plays Bruce’s loyal butler, Alfred Pennyworth.
As is customary whenever a new Batman is cast, fans are divided, and not just because many still associate Pattinson with sparkly vampires. The release of Zack Snyder’s Justice League reignited appreciation for Affleck’s interpretation of the character, and that the effects of Warner Bros. decision to abandon Snyder’s vision for the DCEU are so obvious in this film might create an inherent bias against it. However, Reeves’ track record and the immense talent he’s assembled in front of the camera, Pattinson especially, suggest The Batman has a real chance of overcoming these reservations.
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.
