Blog

Relationships are about commitment, respect and companionship more than they are about love. As such, even when couples seem fine from the outside, there might be problems brewing on the inside. And that’s quite evident with celebrity couples, where we don’t truly know what happens behind closed doors.

Many of these entries are based on rumors, but it is a reality that these celebrities were once together, and their paths are now set apart. From public breakdowns to quiet separations, these are the celebrity couples that, even if now single, would never get back together.

The post Celebrity Couples That Are Never, Ever, Getting Back Together appeared first on Den of Geek.

The hunt for James Bond is on. Even though it has been years since Daniel Craig ended his run with a bang in No Time to Die, a year since Amazon bought the rights from Eon Productions, and months since Denis Villeneuve was announced as the next director, apparently the search for the next 007 has just now begun in earnest. Amazon MGM has named Nina Gold as the casting director. In a statement released through Variety, the studio said, “While we don’t plan to comment on specific details during the casting process, we’re excited to share more news with 007 fans as soon as the time is right.”

Such is their prerogative as a movie studio. But it’s our prerogative as fans to do our own casting. And because we don’t have to worry about things like budgets, schedules, and franchise plans, we can get as wild as we want. So here are five unusual, but ultimately realistic, choices to play James Bond.

A quick note on the word “realistic”: six different male actors have played Bond since 1962’s Dr. No, and although Amazon MGM is not Eon Productions, they’ll likely follow suit. Moreover, James Bond was imagined by Ian Fleming as a blunt instrument of the British empire, a quality that has remained part of the character, even as the edges are sanded down. Modern Bond stories tend to ignore the degree to which Bond kills people to advance England’s colonial and capitalist interests. And while Amazon is happy to produce The Boys, they likely won’t want audiences thinking too much about how Bond is a colonizer.

Which is to say that Bond will probably be another white British man, and so that’s what we’re sticking with here. But that doesn’t mean we can’t get a little weird daydreaming, at least until Gold has found her man.

George Mackay

Easily the most likely of the choices on this list, George Mackay has two strikes against him when looking at traditional Bond candidates. First, his hair is too light. Second, his face is too distinctive. If you think these are silly complaints, well… they are silly complaints. But do a little digging to find the reaction to Craig’s casting 20 years ago, and you’ll find plenty of griping about the actor’s hair color and ear shape. All this despite the fact that the Bond novels by Fleming compare the spy to Hoagy Carmichael, a man with a longer face and wider ears than Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan.

Moreover, Craig showed that a distinctive look can make for a distinctive Bond, especially if the actor has the chops to suggest sorrow in his cold eyes. Mackay certainly fits the bill here. After debuting as a Lost Boy in 2003’s Peter Pan, Mackay has gone on to do impressive work in independent films, earning acclaim for Femme and The Beast, with 1917 being his most well-known movie. It would be quite the leap to go from those productions to a franchise picture helmed by Villeneuve, but Mackay would have just the right energy to be an off-beat leading man in a unique Bond flick.

Josh O’Connor

As long as we’re talking about Bonds with idiosyncratic appearances, let’s consider Josh O’Connor. Unlike McKay, O’Connor has a higher profile, having played major roles in Challengers, Wake Up Dead Man, and the upcoming Steven Spielberg film Disclosure Day. But ever since Villeneuve landed the directing gig—reversing Eon’s tendency to deny big name filmmakers such as Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, and Danny Boyle—a B- or A-list star doesn’t seem impossible.

With his lanky frame, curly hair, and pronounced ears, O’Connor certainly doesn’t fit the usual Bond mold. But O’Connor does have an off-kilter energy that captures something about the secret agent. Anyone who has watched a Bond film knows that 007 isn’t a spy, not really. He walks right into the bad guy’s lair and introduces himself with his real name. He succeeds in his missions thanks to his ability to charm everyone, from women to the villains themselves, even when it doesn’t make sense. O’Connor has just that type of appeal.

Jack O’Connell

Bond films tend to be either serious and brutal or goofy and slick. After five Craig movies that fell into the former category, conventional wisdom suggested that the pendulum would swing toward the lighthearted. But with Villeneuve as director, Bond isn’t going to be driving submarine cars anytime soon, which means that we need another 007 in the mold of Connery and Craig. And if there’s one thing those two actors brought to the character, it’s a sense of danger.

No young British actor has been as charming and scary onscreen as Jack O’Connell. Whether playing an ageless Irish vampire in Sinners or the charitable killer Sir Jimmy in 28 Years Later, O’Connell is at once alluring and unnerving. Moreover, there’s a roughness to O’Connell that can remind viewers that Bond didn’t grow up in the lap of luxury. He’s the son of an arms company rep, and was shuffled around after he lost his parents at the age of eleven. O’Connell can clean up nice, slicking back his hair and slipping into a tux. But he can retain that edge of menace necessary, a reminder that no matter how many martinis he enjoys, Bond always carries a license to kill.

Matt Smith

If we’re talking about unique physiology combined with the ability to play charming and menacing, then we have to look at Matt Smith. Yes, the guy from Doctor Who, House of the Dragon, and, of course, Morbius. Smith oozes charisma that made him a delightful Doctor and a terrifying Targaryen. If he put those qualities together, then he would be the ideal Bond. Don’t believe me? Just look at any of his scenes from Edgar Wright‘s Last Night in Soho, in which he was at once the coolest guy in the room and the one with murder in his heart.

Furthermore, Smith fits the profile of an ideal Bond actor. Like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan before him, Smith has a strong television career, but hasn’t yet become a movie star. He has just enough cache to bring in fans and to do the work, but not so much that the actor will overshadow the character.

Pierce Brosnan

No, I didn’t make a mistake. What if we just brought back Brosnan? Despite starring in two of the worst Bond films, Brosnan never gave up his love for the character and wanted to keep playing the part, even after the disaster that was Die Another Day. As long as No Time to Die already requires a continuity shift, and as long as the movie has Villeneuve on board, a filmmaker who will likely make a single idiosyncratic film instead of a standard franchise entry, why not bring Brosnan back for something different?

Imagine Old Man Bond, the story of a once dashing spy forced to contend with a world he doesn’t understand. Brosnan never totally left the world of espionage and secret service, having appeared in The Matador and in last year’s excellent Black Bag. It wouldn’t be a great leap for him, and it would give Villeneuve a chance to tell a very different type of Bond story.

Plus, it would give Amazon MGM just a little more time to pick their next long-running Bond, since they seem to be making that decision as slowly as possible.

The post The 5 Most Unusual (But Realistic) Choices to Play James Bond appeared first on Den of Geek.

When we think of video games, we often think of titles that start and end, not unlike a show or a movie. But live-service games offer a different kind of experience, one that tries to go on forever. Fortnite and Marvel Rivals know how to capitalize such an ecosystem, and even if they ever shut down, they would still be considered successful.

That isn’t the fate of all live-service games, since players might have the money, but they don’t have the time to play every game in existence. Without an audience, there is no game, so this are the experiences that tried to compete with the multiplayer juggernauts, and failed almost immediately.

The post 15 Games That Were Designed to Last Forever but Died Immediately Instead appeared first on Den of Geek.

The hunt for James Bond is on. Even though it has been years since Daniel Craig ended his run with a bang in No Time to Die, a year since Amazon bought the rights from Eon Productions, and months since Denis Villeneuve was announced as the next director, apparently the search for the next 007 has just now begun in earnest. Amazon MGM has named Nina Gold as the casting director. In a statement released through Variety, the studio said, “While we don’t plan to comment on specific details during the casting process, we’re excited to share more news with 007 fans as soon as the time is right.”

Such is their prerogative as a movie studio. But it’s our prerogative as fans to do our own casting. And because we don’t have to worry about things like budgets, schedules, and franchise plans, we can get as wild as we want. So here are five unusual, but ultimately realistic, choices to play James Bond.

A quick note on the word “realistic”: six different male actors have played Bond since 1962’s Dr. No, and although Amazon MGM is not Eon Productions, they’ll likely follow suit. Moreover, James Bond was imagined by Ian Fleming as a blunt instrument of the British empire, a quality that has remained part of the character, even as the edges are sanded down. Modern Bond stories tend to ignore the degree to which Bond kills people to advance England’s colonial and capitalist interests. And while Amazon is happy to produce The Boys, they likely won’t want audiences thinking too much about how Bond is a colonizer.

Which is to say that Bond will probably be another white British man, and so that’s what we’re sticking with here. But that doesn’t mean we can’t get a little weird daydreaming, at least until Gold has found her man.

George Mackay

Easily the most likely of the choices on this list, George Mackay has two strikes against him when looking at traditional Bond candidates. First, his hair is too light. Second, his face is too distinctive. If you think these are silly complaints, well… they are silly complaints. But do a little digging to find the reaction to Craig’s casting 20 years ago, and you’ll find plenty of griping about the actor’s hair color and ear shape. All this despite the fact that the Bond novels by Fleming compare the spy to Hoagy Carmichael, a man with a longer face and wider ears than Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan.

Moreover, Craig showed that a distinctive look can make for a distinctive Bond, especially if the actor has the chops to suggest sorrow in his cold eyes. Mackay certainly fits the bill here. After debuting as a Lost Boy in 2003’s Peter Pan, Mackay has gone on to do impressive work in independent films, earning acclaim for Femme and The Beast, with 1917 being his most well-known movie. It would be quite the leap to go from those productions to a franchise picture helmed by Villeneuve, but Mackay would have just the right energy to be an off-beat leading man in a unique Bond flick.

Josh O’Connor

As long as we’re talking about Bonds with idiosyncratic appearances, let’s consider Josh O’Connor. Unlike McKay, O’Connor has a higher profile, having played major roles in Challengers, Wake Up Dead Man, and the upcoming Steven Spielberg film Disclosure Day. But ever since Villeneuve landed the directing gig—reversing Eon’s tendency to deny big name filmmakers such as Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, and Danny Boyle—a B- or A-list star doesn’t seem impossible.

With his lanky frame, curly hair, and pronounced ears, O’Connor certainly doesn’t fit the usual Bond mold. But O’Connor does have an off-kilter energy that captures something about the secret agent. Anyone who has watched a Bond film knows that 007 isn’t a spy, not really. He walks right into the bad guy’s lair and introduces himself with his real name. He succeeds in his missions thanks to his ability to charm everyone, from women to the villains themselves, even when it doesn’t make sense. O’Connor has just that type of appeal.

Jack O’Connell

Bond films tend to be either serious and brutal or goofy and slick. After five Craig movies that fell into the former category, conventional wisdom suggested that the pendulum would swing toward the lighthearted. But with Villeneuve as director, Bond isn’t going to be driving submarine cars anytime soon, which means that we need another 007 in the mold of Connery and Craig. And if there’s one thing those two actors brought to the character, it’s a sense of danger.

No young British actor has been as charming and scary onscreen as Jack O’Connell. Whether playing an ageless Irish vampire in Sinners or the charitable killer Sir Jimmy in 28 Years Later, O’Connell is at once alluring and unnerving. Moreover, there’s a roughness to O’Connell that can remind viewers that Bond didn’t grow up in the lap of luxury. He’s the son of an arms company rep, and was shuffled around after he lost his parents at the age of eleven. O’Connell can clean up nice, slicking back his hair and slipping into a tux. But he can retain that edge of menace necessary, a reminder that no matter how many martinis he enjoys, Bond always carries a license to kill.

Matt Smith

If we’re talking about unique physiology combined with the ability to play charming and menacing, then we have to look at Matt Smith. Yes, the guy from Doctor Who, House of the Dragon, and, of course, Morbius. Smith oozes charisma that made him a delightful Doctor and a terrifying Targaryen. If he put those qualities together, then he would be the ideal Bond. Don’t believe me? Just look at any of his scenes from Edgar Wright‘s Last Night in Soho, in which he was at once the coolest guy in the room and the one with murder in his heart.

Furthermore, Smith fits the profile of an ideal Bond actor. Like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan before him, Smith has a strong television career, but hasn’t yet become a movie star. He has just enough cache to bring in fans and to do the work, but not so much that the actor will overshadow the character.

Pierce Brosnan

No, I didn’t make a mistake. What if we just brought back Brosnan? Despite starring in two of the worst Bond films, Brosnan never gave up his love for the character and wanted to keep playing the part, even after the disaster that was Die Another Day. As long as No Time to Die already requires a continuity shift, and as long as the movie has Villeneuve on board, a filmmaker who will likely make a single idiosyncratic film instead of a standard franchise entry, why not bring Brosnan back for something different?

Imagine Old Man Bond, the story of a once dashing spy forced to contend with a world he doesn’t understand. Brosnan never totally left the world of espionage and secret service, having appeared in The Matador and in last year’s excellent Black Bag. It wouldn’t be a great leap for him, and it would give Villeneuve a chance to tell a very different type of Bond story.

Plus, it would give Amazon MGM just a little more time to pick their next long-running Bond, since they seem to be making that decision as slowly as possible.

The post The 5 Most Unusual (But Realistic) Choices to Play James Bond appeared first on Den of Geek.

A character in a movie isn’t just made by the actor; the director, writer, and many other creatives are deeply involved in what makes a scene work. But the one putting their face on the line is, of course, the actor, and it can happen that they don’t fully agree (or commit) to the creative vision of the film.

Actors clashing with creative decisions likely happens more often than we know, but the cases covered here are with veterans of the industry. These are the cases where the actor isn’t an amateur, but someone with a legacy worth noting, yet their voice wasn’t heard in time.

The post 15 Times the Actor Didn’t Agree With the Creative Direction appeared first on Den of Geek.

The hunt for James Bond is on. Even though it has been years since Daniel Craig ended his run with a bang in No Time to Die, a year since Amazon bought the rights from Eon Productions, and months since Denis Villeneuve was announced as the next director, apparently the search for the next 007 has just now begun in earnest. Amazon MGM has named Nina Gold as the casting director. In a statement released through Variety, the studio said, “While we don’t plan to comment on specific details during the casting process, we’re excited to share more news with 007 fans as soon as the time is right.”

Such is their prerogative as a movie studio. But it’s our prerogative as fans to do our own casting. And because we don’t have to worry about things like budgets, schedules, and franchise plans, we can get as wild as we want. So here are five unusual, but ultimately realistic, choices to play James Bond.

A quick note on the word “realistic”: six different male actors have played Bond since 1962’s Dr. No, and although Amazon MGM is not Eon Productions, they’ll likely follow suit. Moreover, James Bond was imagined by Ian Fleming as a blunt instrument of the British empire, a quality that has remained part of the character, even as the edges are sanded down. Modern Bond stories tend to ignore the degree to which Bond kills people to advance England’s colonial and capitalist interests. And while Amazon is happy to produce The Boys, they likely won’t want audiences thinking too much about how Bond is a colonizer.

Which is to say that Bond will probably be another white British man, and so that’s what we’re sticking with here. But that doesn’t mean we can’t get a little weird daydreaming, at least until Gold has found her man.

George Mackay

Easily the most likely of the choices on this list, George Mackay has two strikes against him when looking at traditional Bond candidates. First, his hair is too light. Second, his face is too distinctive. If you think these are silly complaints, well… they are silly complaints. But do a little digging to find the reaction to Craig’s casting 20 years ago, and you’ll find plenty of griping about the actor’s hair color and ear shape. All this despite the fact that the Bond novels by Fleming compare the spy to Hoagy Carmichael, a man with a longer face and wider ears than Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan.

Moreover, Craig showed that a distinctive look can make for a distinctive Bond, especially if the actor has the chops to suggest sorrow in his cold eyes. Mackay certainly fits the bill here. After debuting as a Lost Boy in 2003’s Peter Pan, Mackay has gone on to do impressive work in independent films, earning acclaim for Femme and The Beast, with 1917 being his most well-known movie. It would be quite the leap to go from those productions to a franchise picture helmed by Villeneuve, but Mackay would have just the right energy to be an off-beat leading man in a unique Bond flick.

Josh O’Connor

As long as we’re talking about Bonds with idiosyncratic appearances, let’s consider Josh O’Connor. Unlike McKay, O’Connor has a higher profile, having played major roles in Challengers, Wake Up Dead Man, and the upcoming Steven Spielberg film Disclosure Day. But ever since Villeneuve landed the directing gig—reversing Eon’s tendency to deny big name filmmakers such as Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, and Danny Boyle—a B- or A-list star doesn’t seem impossible.

With his lanky frame, curly hair, and pronounced ears, O’Connor certainly doesn’t fit the usual Bond mold. But O’Connor does have an off-kilter energy that captures something about the secret agent. Anyone who has watched a Bond film knows that 007 isn’t a spy, not really. He walks right into the bad guy’s lair and introduces himself with his real name. He succeeds in his missions thanks to his ability to charm everyone, from women to the villains themselves, even when it doesn’t make sense. O’Connor has just that type of appeal.

Jack O’Connell

Bond films tend to be either serious and brutal or goofy and slick. After five Craig movies that fell into the former category, conventional wisdom suggested that the pendulum would swing toward the lighthearted. But with Villeneuve as director, Bond isn’t going to be driving submarine cars anytime soon, which means that we need another 007 in the mold of Connery and Craig. And if there’s one thing those two actors brought to the character, it’s a sense of danger.

No young British actor has been as charming and scary onscreen as Jack O’Connell. Whether playing an ageless Irish vampire in Sinners or the charitable killer Sir Jimmy in 28 Years Later, O’Connell is at once alluring and unnerving. Moreover, there’s a roughness to O’Connell that can remind viewers that Bond didn’t grow up in the lap of luxury. He’s the son of an arms company rep, and was shuffled around after he lost his parents at the age of eleven. O’Connell can clean up nice, slicking back his hair and slipping into a tux. But he can retain that edge of menace necessary, a reminder that no matter how many martinis he enjoys, Bond always carries a license to kill.

Matt Smith

If we’re talking about unique physiology combined with the ability to play charming and menacing, then we have to look at Matt Smith. Yes, the guy from Doctor Who, House of the Dragon, and, of course, Morbius. Smith oozes charisma that made him a delightful Doctor and a terrifying Targaryen. If he put those qualities together, then he would be the ideal Bond. Don’t believe me? Just look at any of his scenes from Edgar Wright‘s Last Night in Soho, in which he was at once the coolest guy in the room and the one with murder in his heart.

Furthermore, Smith fits the profile of an ideal Bond actor. Like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan before him, Smith has a strong television career, but hasn’t yet become a movie star. He has just enough cache to bring in fans and to do the work, but not so much that the actor will overshadow the character.

Pierce Brosnan

No, I didn’t make a mistake. What if we just brought back Brosnan? Despite starring in two of the worst Bond films, Brosnan never gave up his love for the character and wanted to keep playing the part, even after the disaster that was Die Another Day. As long as No Time to Die already requires a continuity shift, and as long as the movie has Villeneuve on board, a filmmaker who will likely make a single idiosyncratic film instead of a standard franchise entry, why not bring Brosnan back for something different?

Imagine Old Man Bond, the story of a once dashing spy forced to contend with a world he doesn’t understand. Brosnan never totally left the world of espionage and secret service, having appeared in The Matador and in last year’s excellent Black Bag. It wouldn’t be a great leap for him, and it would give Villeneuve a chance to tell a very different type of Bond story.

Plus, it would give Amazon MGM just a little more time to pick their next long-running Bond, since they seem to be making that decision as slowly as possible.

The post The 5 Most Unusual (But Realistic) Choices to Play James Bond appeared first on Den of Geek.

TV Shows often become a huge commitment, not only of your time, but of your emotional investment to the characters. As years go on, trying to keep that momentum going is difficult, not to mention that certain stories shouldn’t be several seasons long.

But if something has the proper rating, the show must go on, even if it doesn’t make sense. These are the shows that, unless you’re a serious fan, it’s hard to imagine anyone watching them all the way through. And as a new viewer today, it is even harder to believe.

The post 15 Shows We Don’t Believe Anyone Actually Watched All the Way Through appeared first on Den of Geek.

The hunt for James Bond is on. Even though it has been years since Daniel Craig ended his run with a bang in No Time to Die, a year since Amazon bought the rights from Eon Productions, and months since Denis Villeneuve was announced as the next director, apparently the search for the next 007 has just now begun in earnest. Amazon MGM has named Nina Gold as the casting director. In a statement released through Variety, the studio said, “While we don’t plan to comment on specific details during the casting process, we’re excited to share more news with 007 fans as soon as the time is right.”

Such is their prerogative as a movie studio. But it’s our prerogative as fans to do our own casting. And because we don’t have to worry about things like budgets, schedules, and franchise plans, we can get as wild as we want. So here are five unusual, but ultimately realistic, choices to play James Bond.

A quick note on the word “realistic”: six different male actors have played Bond since 1962’s Dr. No, and although Amazon MGM is not Eon Productions, they’ll likely follow suit. Moreover, James Bond was imagined by Ian Fleming as a blunt instrument of the British empire, a quality that has remained part of the character, even as the edges are sanded down. Modern Bond stories tend to ignore the degree to which Bond kills people to advance England’s colonial and capitalist interests. And while Amazon is happy to produce The Boys, they likely won’t want audiences thinking too much about how Bond is a colonizer.

Which is to say that Bond will probably be another white British man, and so that’s what we’re sticking with here. But that doesn’t mean we can’t get a little weird daydreaming, at least until Gold has found her man.

George Mackay

Easily the most likely of the choices on this list, George Mackay has two strikes against him when looking at traditional Bond candidates. First, his hair is too light. Second, his face is too distinctive. If you think these are silly complaints, well… they are silly complaints. But do a little digging to find the reaction to Craig’s casting 20 years ago, and you’ll find plenty of griping about the actor’s hair color and ear shape. All this despite the fact that the Bond novels by Fleming compare the spy to Hoagy Carmichael, a man with a longer face and wider ears than Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan.

Moreover, Craig showed that a distinctive look can make for a distinctive Bond, especially if the actor has the chops to suggest sorrow in his cold eyes. Mackay certainly fits the bill here. After debuting as a Lost Boy in 2003’s Peter Pan, Mackay has gone on to do impressive work in independent films, earning acclaim for Femme and The Beast, with 1917 being his most well-known movie. It would be quite the leap to go from those productions to a franchise picture helmed by Villeneuve, but Mackay would have just the right energy to be an off-beat leading man in a unique Bond flick.

Josh O’Connor

As long as we’re talking about Bonds with idiosyncratic appearances, let’s consider Josh O’Connor. Unlike McKay, O’Connor has a higher profile, having played major roles in Challengers, Wake Up Dead Man, and the upcoming Steven Spielberg film Disclosure Day. But ever since Villeneuve landed the directing gig—reversing Eon’s tendency to deny big name filmmakers such as Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, and Danny Boyle—a B- or A-list star doesn’t seem impossible.

With his lanky frame, curly hair, and pronounced ears, O’Connor certainly doesn’t fit the usual Bond mold. But O’Connor does have an off-kilter energy that captures something about the secret agent. Anyone who has watched a Bond film knows that 007 isn’t a spy, not really. He walks right into the bad guy’s lair and introduces himself with his real name. He succeeds in his missions thanks to his ability to charm everyone, from women to the villains themselves, even when it doesn’t make sense. O’Connor has just that type of appeal.

Jack O’Connell

Bond films tend to be either serious and brutal or goofy and slick. After five Craig movies that fell into the former category, conventional wisdom suggested that the pendulum would swing toward the lighthearted. But with Villeneuve as director, Bond isn’t going to be driving submarine cars anytime soon, which means that we need another 007 in the mold of Connery and Craig. And if there’s one thing those two actors brought to the character, it’s a sense of danger.

No young British actor has been as charming and scary onscreen as Jack O’Connell. Whether playing an ageless Irish vampire in Sinners or the charitable killer Sir Jimmy in 28 Years Later, O’Connell is at once alluring and unnerving. Moreover, there’s a roughness to O’Connell that can remind viewers that Bond didn’t grow up in the lap of luxury. He’s the son of an arms company rep, and was shuffled around after he lost his parents at the age of eleven. O’Connell can clean up nice, slicking back his hair and slipping into a tux. But he can retain that edge of menace necessary, a reminder that no matter how many martinis he enjoys, Bond always carries a license to kill.

Matt Smith

If we’re talking about unique physiology combined with the ability to play charming and menacing, then we have to look at Matt Smith. Yes, the guy from Doctor Who, House of the Dragon, and, of course, Morbius. Smith oozes charisma that made him a delightful Doctor and a terrifying Targaryen. If he put those qualities together, then he would be the ideal Bond. Don’t believe me? Just look at any of his scenes from Edgar Wright‘s Last Night in Soho, in which he was at once the coolest guy in the room and the one with murder in his heart.

Furthermore, Smith fits the profile of an ideal Bond actor. Like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan before him, Smith has a strong television career, but hasn’t yet become a movie star. He has just enough cache to bring in fans and to do the work, but not so much that the actor will overshadow the character.

Pierce Brosnan

No, I didn’t make a mistake. What if we just brought back Brosnan? Despite starring in two of the worst Bond films, Brosnan never gave up his love for the character and wanted to keep playing the part, even after the disaster that was Die Another Day. As long as No Time to Die already requires a continuity shift, and as long as the movie has Villeneuve on board, a filmmaker who will likely make a single idiosyncratic film instead of a standard franchise entry, why not bring Brosnan back for something different?

Imagine Old Man Bond, the story of a once dashing spy forced to contend with a world he doesn’t understand. Brosnan never totally left the world of espionage and secret service, having appeared in The Matador and in last year’s excellent Black Bag. It wouldn’t be a great leap for him, and it would give Villeneuve a chance to tell a very different type of Bond story.

Plus, it would give Amazon MGM just a little more time to pick their next long-running Bond, since they seem to be making that decision as slowly as possible.

The post The 5 Most Unusual (But Realistic) Choices to Play James Bond appeared first on Den of Geek.

The blaring sirens of a space station’s decontamination room are set to hit gaming consoles once again with the sequel to Creative Assembly’s survival horror game Alien: Isolation.  In the teaser for the sequel, a 25-second clip titled A False Sense of Security, we are introduced to the familiar intense atmosphere of a deserted ship, […]

The post Alien: Isolation 2 Might Be Losing the Original Game’s Best Feature  appeared first on Den of Geek.

The hunt for James Bond is on. Even though it has been years since Daniel Craig ended his run with a bang in No Time to Die, a year since Amazon bought the rights from Eon Productions, and months since Denis Villeneuve was announced as the next director, apparently the search for the next 007 has just now begun in earnest. Amazon MGM has named Nina Gold as the casting director. In a statement released through Variety, the studio said, “While we don’t plan to comment on specific details during the casting process, we’re excited to share more news with 007 fans as soon as the time is right.”

Such is their prerogative as a movie studio. But it’s our prerogative as fans to do our own casting. And because we don’t have to worry about things like budgets, schedules, and franchise plans, we can get as wild as we want. So here are five unusual, but ultimately realistic, choices to play James Bond.

A quick note on the word “realistic”: six different male actors have played Bond since 1962’s Dr. No, and although Amazon MGM is not Eon Productions, they’ll likely follow suit. Moreover, James Bond was imagined by Ian Fleming as a blunt instrument of the British empire, a quality that has remained part of the character, even as the edges are sanded down. Modern Bond stories tend to ignore the degree to which Bond kills people to advance England’s colonial and capitalist interests. And while Amazon is happy to produce The Boys, they likely won’t want audiences thinking too much about how Bond is a colonizer.

Which is to say that Bond will probably be another white British man, and so that’s what we’re sticking with here. But that doesn’t mean we can’t get a little weird daydreaming, at least until Gold has found her man.

George Mackay

Easily the most likely of the choices on this list, George Mackay has two strikes against him when looking at traditional Bond candidates. First, his hair is too light. Second, his face is too distinctive. If you think these are silly complaints, well… they are silly complaints. But do a little digging to find the reaction to Craig’s casting 20 years ago, and you’ll find plenty of griping about the actor’s hair color and ear shape. All this despite the fact that the Bond novels by Fleming compare the spy to Hoagy Carmichael, a man with a longer face and wider ears than Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan.

Moreover, Craig showed that a distinctive look can make for a distinctive Bond, especially if the actor has the chops to suggest sorrow in his cold eyes. Mackay certainly fits the bill here. After debuting as a Lost Boy in 2003’s Peter Pan, Mackay has gone on to do impressive work in independent films, earning acclaim for Femme and The Beast, with 1917 being his most well-known movie. It would be quite the leap to go from those productions to a franchise picture helmed by Villeneuve, but Mackay would have just the right energy to be an off-beat leading man in a unique Bond flick.

Josh O’Connor

As long as we’re talking about Bonds with idiosyncratic appearances, let’s consider Josh O’Connor. Unlike McKay, O’Connor has a higher profile, having played major roles in Challengers, Wake Up Dead Man, and the upcoming Steven Spielberg film Disclosure Day. But ever since Villeneuve landed the directing gig—reversing Eon’s tendency to deny big name filmmakers such as Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, and Danny Boyle—a B- or A-list star doesn’t seem impossible.

With his lanky frame, curly hair, and pronounced ears, O’Connor certainly doesn’t fit the usual Bond mold. But O’Connor does have an off-kilter energy that captures something about the secret agent. Anyone who has watched a Bond film knows that 007 isn’t a spy, not really. He walks right into the bad guy’s lair and introduces himself with his real name. He succeeds in his missions thanks to his ability to charm everyone, from women to the villains themselves, even when it doesn’t make sense. O’Connor has just that type of appeal.

Jack O’Connell

Bond films tend to be either serious and brutal or goofy and slick. After five Craig movies that fell into the former category, conventional wisdom suggested that the pendulum would swing toward the lighthearted. But with Villeneuve as director, Bond isn’t going to be driving submarine cars anytime soon, which means that we need another 007 in the mold of Connery and Craig. And if there’s one thing those two actors brought to the character, it’s a sense of danger.

No young British actor has been as charming and scary onscreen as Jack O’Connell. Whether playing an ageless Irish vampire in Sinners or the charitable killer Sir Jimmy in 28 Years Later, O’Connell is at once alluring and unnerving. Moreover, there’s a roughness to O’Connell that can remind viewers that Bond didn’t grow up in the lap of luxury. He’s the son of an arms company rep, and was shuffled around after he lost his parents at the age of eleven. O’Connell can clean up nice, slicking back his hair and slipping into a tux. But he can retain that edge of menace necessary, a reminder that no matter how many martinis he enjoys, Bond always carries a license to kill.

Matt Smith

If we’re talking about unique physiology combined with the ability to play charming and menacing, then we have to look at Matt Smith. Yes, the guy from Doctor Who, House of the Dragon, and, of course, Morbius. Smith oozes charisma that made him a delightful Doctor and a terrifying Targaryen. If he put those qualities together, then he would be the ideal Bond. Don’t believe me? Just look at any of his scenes from Edgar Wright‘s Last Night in Soho, in which he was at once the coolest guy in the room and the one with murder in his heart.

Furthermore, Smith fits the profile of an ideal Bond actor. Like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan before him, Smith has a strong television career, but hasn’t yet become a movie star. He has just enough cache to bring in fans and to do the work, but not so much that the actor will overshadow the character.

Pierce Brosnan

No, I didn’t make a mistake. What if we just brought back Brosnan? Despite starring in two of the worst Bond films, Brosnan never gave up his love for the character and wanted to keep playing the part, even after the disaster that was Die Another Day. As long as No Time to Die already requires a continuity shift, and as long as the movie has Villeneuve on board, a filmmaker who will likely make a single idiosyncratic film instead of a standard franchise entry, why not bring Brosnan back for something different?

Imagine Old Man Bond, the story of a once dashing spy forced to contend with a world he doesn’t understand. Brosnan never totally left the world of espionage and secret service, having appeared in The Matador and in last year’s excellent Black Bag. It wouldn’t be a great leap for him, and it would give Villeneuve a chance to tell a very different type of Bond story.

Plus, it would give Amazon MGM just a little more time to pick their next long-running Bond, since they seem to be making that decision as slowly as possible.

The post The 5 Most Unusual (But Realistic) Choices to Play James Bond appeared first on Den of Geek.

The following contains spoilers for the first three episodes of Rivals season 2. Rivals is back for a second season, and it’s bigger, bolder, and more complicated than ever before. But while the show has garnered plenty of buzz for its copious amounts of sex, hedonistic attitude, and gleeful depiction of some of the worst […]

The post Rivals Stars on Rupert and Taggie’s “Emotional Edging” in Season 2  appeared first on Den of Geek.

The hunt for James Bond is on. Even though it has been years since Daniel Craig ended his run with a bang in No Time to Die, a year since Amazon bought the rights from Eon Productions, and months since Denis Villeneuve was announced as the next director, apparently the search for the next 007 has just now begun in earnest. Amazon MGM has named Nina Gold as the casting director. In a statement released through Variety, the studio said, “While we don’t plan to comment on specific details during the casting process, we’re excited to share more news with 007 fans as soon as the time is right.”

Such is their prerogative as a movie studio. But it’s our prerogative as fans to do our own casting. And because we don’t have to worry about things like budgets, schedules, and franchise plans, we can get as wild as we want. So here are five unusual, but ultimately realistic, choices to play James Bond.

A quick note on the word “realistic”: six different male actors have played Bond since 1962’s Dr. No, and although Amazon MGM is not Eon Productions, they’ll likely follow suit. Moreover, James Bond was imagined by Ian Fleming as a blunt instrument of the British empire, a quality that has remained part of the character, even as the edges are sanded down. Modern Bond stories tend to ignore the degree to which Bond kills people to advance England’s colonial and capitalist interests. And while Amazon is happy to produce The Boys, they likely won’t want audiences thinking too much about how Bond is a colonizer.

Which is to say that Bond will probably be another white British man, and so that’s what we’re sticking with here. But that doesn’t mean we can’t get a little weird daydreaming, at least until Gold has found her man.

George Mackay

Easily the most likely of the choices on this list, George Mackay has two strikes against him when looking at traditional Bond candidates. First, his hair is too light. Second, his face is too distinctive. If you think these are silly complaints, well… they are silly complaints. But do a little digging to find the reaction to Craig’s casting 20 years ago, and you’ll find plenty of griping about the actor’s hair color and ear shape. All this despite the fact that the Bond novels by Fleming compare the spy to Hoagy Carmichael, a man with a longer face and wider ears than Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan.

Moreover, Craig showed that a distinctive look can make for a distinctive Bond, especially if the actor has the chops to suggest sorrow in his cold eyes. Mackay certainly fits the bill here. After debuting as a Lost Boy in 2003’s Peter Pan, Mackay has gone on to do impressive work in independent films, earning acclaim for Femme and The Beast, with 1917 being his most well-known movie. It would be quite the leap to go from those productions to a franchise picture helmed by Villeneuve, but Mackay would have just the right energy to be an off-beat leading man in a unique Bond flick.

Josh O’Connor

As long as we’re talking about Bonds with idiosyncratic appearances, let’s consider Josh O’Connor. Unlike McKay, O’Connor has a higher profile, having played major roles in Challengers, Wake Up Dead Man, and the upcoming Steven Spielberg film Disclosure Day. But ever since Villeneuve landed the directing gig—reversing Eon’s tendency to deny big name filmmakers such as Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, and Danny Boyle—a B- or A-list star doesn’t seem impossible.

With his lanky frame, curly hair, and pronounced ears, O’Connor certainly doesn’t fit the usual Bond mold. But O’Connor does have an off-kilter energy that captures something about the secret agent. Anyone who has watched a Bond film knows that 007 isn’t a spy, not really. He walks right into the bad guy’s lair and introduces himself with his real name. He succeeds in his missions thanks to his ability to charm everyone, from women to the villains themselves, even when it doesn’t make sense. O’Connor has just that type of appeal.

Jack O’Connell

Bond films tend to be either serious and brutal or goofy and slick. After five Craig movies that fell into the former category, conventional wisdom suggested that the pendulum would swing toward the lighthearted. But with Villeneuve as director, Bond isn’t going to be driving submarine cars anytime soon, which means that we need another 007 in the mold of Connery and Craig. And if there’s one thing those two actors brought to the character, it’s a sense of danger.

No young British actor has been as charming and scary onscreen as Jack O’Connell. Whether playing an ageless Irish vampire in Sinners or the charitable killer Sir Jimmy in 28 Years Later, O’Connell is at once alluring and unnerving. Moreover, there’s a roughness to O’Connell that can remind viewers that Bond didn’t grow up in the lap of luxury. He’s the son of an arms company rep, and was shuffled around after he lost his parents at the age of eleven. O’Connell can clean up nice, slicking back his hair and slipping into a tux. But he can retain that edge of menace necessary, a reminder that no matter how many martinis he enjoys, Bond always carries a license to kill.

Matt Smith

If we’re talking about unique physiology combined with the ability to play charming and menacing, then we have to look at Matt Smith. Yes, the guy from Doctor Who, House of the Dragon, and, of course, Morbius. Smith oozes charisma that made him a delightful Doctor and a terrifying Targaryen. If he put those qualities together, then he would be the ideal Bond. Don’t believe me? Just look at any of his scenes from Edgar Wright‘s Last Night in Soho, in which he was at once the coolest guy in the room and the one with murder in his heart.

Furthermore, Smith fits the profile of an ideal Bond actor. Like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan before him, Smith has a strong television career, but hasn’t yet become a movie star. He has just enough cache to bring in fans and to do the work, but not so much that the actor will overshadow the character.

Pierce Brosnan

No, I didn’t make a mistake. What if we just brought back Brosnan? Despite starring in two of the worst Bond films, Brosnan never gave up his love for the character and wanted to keep playing the part, even after the disaster that was Die Another Day. As long as No Time to Die already requires a continuity shift, and as long as the movie has Villeneuve on board, a filmmaker who will likely make a single idiosyncratic film instead of a standard franchise entry, why not bring Brosnan back for something different?

Imagine Old Man Bond, the story of a once dashing spy forced to contend with a world he doesn’t understand. Brosnan never totally left the world of espionage and secret service, having appeared in The Matador and in last year’s excellent Black Bag. It wouldn’t be a great leap for him, and it would give Villeneuve a chance to tell a very different type of Bond story.

Plus, it would give Amazon MGM just a little more time to pick their next long-running Bond, since they seem to be making that decision as slowly as possible.

The post The 5 Most Unusual (But Realistic) Choices to Play James Bond appeared first on Den of Geek.

At the end of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, after all of the heroes have perished on their mission, Darth Vader arrives to absolutely wreck a bunch of rebels. The 60-second sequence shows Vader slashing dudes with his lightsaber, crushing enemies with the Force, and deflecting every laser blast. Yet, even within that bravura […]

The post Star Wars Has Forgotten Its True Villains: The Company Men appeared first on Den of Geek.

The hunt for James Bond is on. Even though it has been years since Daniel Craig ended his run with a bang in No Time to Die, a year since Amazon bought the rights from Eon Productions, and months since Denis Villeneuve was announced as the next director, apparently the search for the next 007 has just now begun in earnest. Amazon MGM has named Nina Gold as the casting director. In a statement released through Variety, the studio said, “While we don’t plan to comment on specific details during the casting process, we’re excited to share more news with 007 fans as soon as the time is right.”

Such is their prerogative as a movie studio. But it’s our prerogative as fans to do our own casting. And because we don’t have to worry about things like budgets, schedules, and franchise plans, we can get as wild as we want. So here are five unusual, but ultimately realistic, choices to play James Bond.

A quick note on the word “realistic”: six different male actors have played Bond since 1962’s Dr. No, and although Amazon MGM is not Eon Productions, they’ll likely follow suit. Moreover, James Bond was imagined by Ian Fleming as a blunt instrument of the British empire, a quality that has remained part of the character, even as the edges are sanded down. Modern Bond stories tend to ignore the degree to which Bond kills people to advance England’s colonial and capitalist interests. And while Amazon is happy to produce The Boys, they likely won’t want audiences thinking too much about how Bond is a colonizer.

Which is to say that Bond will probably be another white British man, and so that’s what we’re sticking with here. But that doesn’t mean we can’t get a little weird daydreaming, at least until Gold has found her man.

George Mackay

Easily the most likely of the choices on this list, George Mackay has two strikes against him when looking at traditional Bond candidates. First, his hair is too light. Second, his face is too distinctive. If you think these are silly complaints, well… they are silly complaints. But do a little digging to find the reaction to Craig’s casting 20 years ago, and you’ll find plenty of griping about the actor’s hair color and ear shape. All this despite the fact that the Bond novels by Fleming compare the spy to Hoagy Carmichael, a man with a longer face and wider ears than Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan.

Moreover, Craig showed that a distinctive look can make for a distinctive Bond, especially if the actor has the chops to suggest sorrow in his cold eyes. Mackay certainly fits the bill here. After debuting as a Lost Boy in 2003’s Peter Pan, Mackay has gone on to do impressive work in independent films, earning acclaim for Femme and The Beast, with 1917 being his most well-known movie. It would be quite the leap to go from those productions to a franchise picture helmed by Villeneuve, but Mackay would have just the right energy to be an off-beat leading man in a unique Bond flick.

Josh O’Connor

As long as we’re talking about Bonds with idiosyncratic appearances, let’s consider Josh O’Connor. Unlike McKay, O’Connor has a higher profile, having played major roles in Challengers, Wake Up Dead Man, and the upcoming Steven Spielberg film Disclosure Day. But ever since Villeneuve landed the directing gig—reversing Eon’s tendency to deny big name filmmakers such as Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, and Danny Boyle—a B- or A-list star doesn’t seem impossible.

With his lanky frame, curly hair, and pronounced ears, O’Connor certainly doesn’t fit the usual Bond mold. But O’Connor does have an off-kilter energy that captures something about the secret agent. Anyone who has watched a Bond film knows that 007 isn’t a spy, not really. He walks right into the bad guy’s lair and introduces himself with his real name. He succeeds in his missions thanks to his ability to charm everyone, from women to the villains themselves, even when it doesn’t make sense. O’Connor has just that type of appeal.

Jack O’Connell

Bond films tend to be either serious and brutal or goofy and slick. After five Craig movies that fell into the former category, conventional wisdom suggested that the pendulum would swing toward the lighthearted. But with Villeneuve as director, Bond isn’t going to be driving submarine cars anytime soon, which means that we need another 007 in the mold of Connery and Craig. And if there’s one thing those two actors brought to the character, it’s a sense of danger.

No young British actor has been as charming and scary onscreen as Jack O’Connell. Whether playing an ageless Irish vampire in Sinners or the charitable killer Sir Jimmy in 28 Years Later, O’Connell is at once alluring and unnerving. Moreover, there’s a roughness to O’Connell that can remind viewers that Bond didn’t grow up in the lap of luxury. He’s the son of an arms company rep, and was shuffled around after he lost his parents at the age of eleven. O’Connell can clean up nice, slicking back his hair and slipping into a tux. But he can retain that edge of menace necessary, a reminder that no matter how many martinis he enjoys, Bond always carries a license to kill.

Matt Smith

If we’re talking about unique physiology combined with the ability to play charming and menacing, then we have to look at Matt Smith. Yes, the guy from Doctor Who, House of the Dragon, and, of course, Morbius. Smith oozes charisma that made him a delightful Doctor and a terrifying Targaryen. If he put those qualities together, then he would be the ideal Bond. Don’t believe me? Just look at any of his scenes from Edgar Wright‘s Last Night in Soho, in which he was at once the coolest guy in the room and the one with murder in his heart.

Furthermore, Smith fits the profile of an ideal Bond actor. Like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan before him, Smith has a strong television career, but hasn’t yet become a movie star. He has just enough cache to bring in fans and to do the work, but not so much that the actor will overshadow the character.

Pierce Brosnan

No, I didn’t make a mistake. What if we just brought back Brosnan? Despite starring in two of the worst Bond films, Brosnan never gave up his love for the character and wanted to keep playing the part, even after the disaster that was Die Another Day. As long as No Time to Die already requires a continuity shift, and as long as the movie has Villeneuve on board, a filmmaker who will likely make a single idiosyncratic film instead of a standard franchise entry, why not bring Brosnan back for something different?

Imagine Old Man Bond, the story of a once dashing spy forced to contend with a world he doesn’t understand. Brosnan never totally left the world of espionage and secret service, having appeared in The Matador and in last year’s excellent Black Bag. It wouldn’t be a great leap for him, and it would give Villeneuve a chance to tell a very different type of Bond story.

Plus, it would give Amazon MGM just a little more time to pick their next long-running Bond, since they seem to be making that decision as slowly as possible.

The post The 5 Most Unusual (But Realistic) Choices to Play James Bond appeared first on Den of Geek.

The hunt for James Bond is on. Even though it has been years since Daniel Craig ended his run with a bang in No Time to Die, a year since Amazon bought the rights from Eon Productions, and months since Denis Villeneuve was announced as the next director, apparently the search for the next 007 […]

The post The 5 Most Unusual (But Realistic) Choices to Play James Bond appeared first on Den of Geek.

The hunt for James Bond is on. Even though it has been years since Daniel Craig ended his run with a bang in No Time to Die, a year since Amazon bought the rights from Eon Productions, and months since Denis Villeneuve was announced as the next director, apparently the search for the next 007 has just now begun in earnest. Amazon MGM has named Nina Gold as the casting director. In a statement released through Variety, the studio said, “While we don’t plan to comment on specific details during the casting process, we’re excited to share more news with 007 fans as soon as the time is right.”

Such is their prerogative as a movie studio. But it’s our prerogative as fans to do our own casting. And because we don’t have to worry about things like budgets, schedules, and franchise plans, we can get as wild as we want. So here are five unusual, but ultimately realistic, choices to play James Bond.

A quick note on the word “realistic”: six different male actors have played Bond since 1962’s Dr. No, and although Amazon MGM is not Eon Productions, they’ll likely follow suit. Moreover, James Bond was imagined by Ian Fleming as a blunt instrument of the British empire, a quality that has remained part of the character, even as the edges are sanded down. Modern Bond stories tend to ignore the degree to which Bond kills people to advance England’s colonial and capitalist interests. And while Amazon is happy to produce The Boys, they likely won’t want audiences thinking too much about how Bond is a colonizer.

Which is to say that Bond will probably be another white British man, and so that’s what we’re sticking with here. But that doesn’t mean we can’t get a little weird daydreaming, at least until Gold has found her man.

George Mackay

Easily the most likely of the choices on this list, George Mackay has two strikes against him when looking at traditional Bond candidates. First, his hair is too light. Second, his face is too distinctive. If you think these are silly complaints, well… they are silly complaints. But do a little digging to find the reaction to Craig’s casting 20 years ago, and you’ll find plenty of griping about the actor’s hair color and ear shape. All this despite the fact that the Bond novels by Fleming compare the spy to Hoagy Carmichael, a man with a longer face and wider ears than Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan.

Moreover, Craig showed that a distinctive look can make for a distinctive Bond, especially if the actor has the chops to suggest sorrow in his cold eyes. Mackay certainly fits the bill here. After debuting as a Lost Boy in 2003’s Peter Pan, Mackay has gone on to do impressive work in independent films, earning acclaim for Femme and The Beast, with 1917 being his most well-known movie. It would be quite the leap to go from those productions to a franchise picture helmed by Villeneuve, but Mackay would have just the right energy to be an off-beat leading man in a unique Bond flick.

Josh O’Connor

As long as we’re talking about Bonds with idiosyncratic appearances, let’s consider Josh O’Connor. Unlike McKay, O’Connor has a higher profile, having played major roles in Challengers, Wake Up Dead Man, and the upcoming Steven Spielberg film Disclosure Day. But ever since Villeneuve landed the directing gig—reversing Eon’s tendency to deny big name filmmakers such as Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, and Danny Boyle—a B- or A-list star doesn’t seem impossible.

With his lanky frame, curly hair, and pronounced ears, O’Connor certainly doesn’t fit the usual Bond mold. But O’Connor does have an off-kilter energy that captures something about the secret agent. Anyone who has watched a Bond film knows that 007 isn’t a spy, not really. He walks right into the bad guy’s lair and introduces himself with his real name. He succeeds in his missions thanks to his ability to charm everyone, from women to the villains themselves, even when it doesn’t make sense. O’Connor has just that type of appeal.

Jack O’Connell

Bond films tend to be either serious and brutal or goofy and slick. After five Craig movies that fell into the former category, conventional wisdom suggested that the pendulum would swing toward the lighthearted. But with Villeneuve as director, Bond isn’t going to be driving submarine cars anytime soon, which means that we need another 007 in the mold of Connery and Craig. And if there’s one thing those two actors brought to the character, it’s a sense of danger.

No young British actor has been as charming and scary onscreen as Jack O’Connell. Whether playing an ageless Irish vampire in Sinners or the charitable killer Sir Jimmy in 28 Years Later, O’Connell is at once alluring and unnerving. Moreover, there’s a roughness to O’Connell that can remind viewers that Bond didn’t grow up in the lap of luxury. He’s the son of an arms company rep, and was shuffled around after he lost his parents at the age of eleven. O’Connell can clean up nice, slicking back his hair and slipping into a tux. But he can retain that edge of menace necessary, a reminder that no matter how many martinis he enjoys, Bond always carries a license to kill.

Matt Smith

If we’re talking about unique physiology combined with the ability to play charming and menacing, then we have to look at Matt Smith. Yes, the guy from Doctor Who, House of the Dragon, and, of course, Morbius. Smith oozes charisma that made him a delightful Doctor and a terrifying Targaryen. If he put those qualities together, then he would be the ideal Bond. Don’t believe me? Just look at any of his scenes from Edgar Wright‘s Last Night in Soho, in which he was at once the coolest guy in the room and the one with murder in his heart.

Furthermore, Smith fits the profile of an ideal Bond actor. Like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan before him, Smith has a strong television career, but hasn’t yet become a movie star. He has just enough cache to bring in fans and to do the work, but not so much that the actor will overshadow the character.

Pierce Brosnan

No, I didn’t make a mistake. What if we just brought back Brosnan? Despite starring in two of the worst Bond films, Brosnan never gave up his love for the character and wanted to keep playing the part, even after the disaster that was Die Another Day. As long as No Time to Die already requires a continuity shift, and as long as the movie has Villeneuve on board, a filmmaker who will likely make a single idiosyncratic film instead of a standard franchise entry, why not bring Brosnan back for something different?

Imagine Old Man Bond, the story of a once dashing spy forced to contend with a world he doesn’t understand. Brosnan never totally left the world of espionage and secret service, having appeared in The Matador and in last year’s excellent Black Bag. It wouldn’t be a great leap for him, and it would give Villeneuve a chance to tell a very different type of Bond story.

Plus, it would give Amazon MGM just a little more time to pick their next long-running Bond, since they seem to be making that decision as slowly as possible.

The post The 5 Most Unusual (But Realistic) Choices to Play James Bond appeared first on Den of Geek.

Fan-favorite gunslinging “Jackpot-”saying half-demon mercenary Dante Sparda is back for season 2 of Netflix’s Devil May Cry, joined by his equally powerful, more stoic and demonically-leaning twin brother. Dante (Johnny Yong) returns to TV with a renewed purpose: to defeat the king of the demons, Mundus (Ray Chase), and get his brother, Vergil Sparda (Robbie […]

The post Devil May Cry Season 2 Review: DMC Takes Daddy Issues to Extreme Power Levels appeared first on Den of Geek.

The hunt for James Bond is on. Even though it has been years since Daniel Craig ended his run with a bang in No Time to Die, a year since Amazon bought the rights from Eon Productions, and months since Denis Villeneuve was announced as the next director, apparently the search for the next 007 has just now begun in earnest. Amazon MGM has named Nina Gold as the casting director. In a statement released through Variety, the studio said, “While we don’t plan to comment on specific details during the casting process, we’re excited to share more news with 007 fans as soon as the time is right.”

Such is their prerogative as a movie studio. But it’s our prerogative as fans to do our own casting. And because we don’t have to worry about things like budgets, schedules, and franchise plans, we can get as wild as we want. So here are five unusual, but ultimately realistic, choices to play James Bond.

A quick note on the word “realistic”: six different male actors have played Bond since 1962’s Dr. No, and although Amazon MGM is not Eon Productions, they’ll likely follow suit. Moreover, James Bond was imagined by Ian Fleming as a blunt instrument of the British empire, a quality that has remained part of the character, even as the edges are sanded down. Modern Bond stories tend to ignore the degree to which Bond kills people to advance England’s colonial and capitalist interests. And while Amazon is happy to produce The Boys, they likely won’t want audiences thinking too much about how Bond is a colonizer.

Which is to say that Bond will probably be another white British man, and so that’s what we’re sticking with here. But that doesn’t mean we can’t get a little weird daydreaming, at least until Gold has found her man.

George Mackay

Easily the most likely of the choices on this list, George Mackay has two strikes against him when looking at traditional Bond candidates. First, his hair is too light. Second, his face is too distinctive. If you think these are silly complaints, well… they are silly complaints. But do a little digging to find the reaction to Craig’s casting 20 years ago, and you’ll find plenty of griping about the actor’s hair color and ear shape. All this despite the fact that the Bond novels by Fleming compare the spy to Hoagy Carmichael, a man with a longer face and wider ears than Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan.

Moreover, Craig showed that a distinctive look can make for a distinctive Bond, especially if the actor has the chops to suggest sorrow in his cold eyes. Mackay certainly fits the bill here. After debuting as a Lost Boy in 2003’s Peter Pan, Mackay has gone on to do impressive work in independent films, earning acclaim for Femme and The Beast, with 1917 being his most well-known movie. It would be quite the leap to go from those productions to a franchise picture helmed by Villeneuve, but Mackay would have just the right energy to be an off-beat leading man in a unique Bond flick.

Josh O’Connor

As long as we’re talking about Bonds with idiosyncratic appearances, let’s consider Josh O’Connor. Unlike McKay, O’Connor has a higher profile, having played major roles in Challengers, Wake Up Dead Man, and the upcoming Steven Spielberg film Disclosure Day. But ever since Villeneuve landed the directing gig—reversing Eon’s tendency to deny big name filmmakers such as Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, and Danny Boyle—a B- or A-list star doesn’t seem impossible.

With his lanky frame, curly hair, and pronounced ears, O’Connor certainly doesn’t fit the usual Bond mold. But O’Connor does have an off-kilter energy that captures something about the secret agent. Anyone who has watched a Bond film knows that 007 isn’t a spy, not really. He walks right into the bad guy’s lair and introduces himself with his real name. He succeeds in his missions thanks to his ability to charm everyone, from women to the villains themselves, even when it doesn’t make sense. O’Connor has just that type of appeal.

Jack O’Connell

Bond films tend to be either serious and brutal or goofy and slick. After five Craig movies that fell into the former category, conventional wisdom suggested that the pendulum would swing toward the lighthearted. But with Villeneuve as director, Bond isn’t going to be driving submarine cars anytime soon, which means that we need another 007 in the mold of Connery and Craig. And if there’s one thing those two actors brought to the character, it’s a sense of danger.

No young British actor has been as charming and scary onscreen as Jack O’Connell. Whether playing an ageless Irish vampire in Sinners or the charitable killer Sir Jimmy in 28 Years Later, O’Connell is at once alluring and unnerving. Moreover, there’s a roughness to O’Connell that can remind viewers that Bond didn’t grow up in the lap of luxury. He’s the son of an arms company rep, and was shuffled around after he lost his parents at the age of eleven. O’Connell can clean up nice, slicking back his hair and slipping into a tux. But he can retain that edge of menace necessary, a reminder that no matter how many martinis he enjoys, Bond always carries a license to kill.

Matt Smith

If we’re talking about unique physiology combined with the ability to play charming and menacing, then we have to look at Matt Smith. Yes, the guy from Doctor Who, House of the Dragon, and, of course, Morbius. Smith oozes charisma that made him a delightful Doctor and a terrifying Targaryen. If he put those qualities together, then he would be the ideal Bond. Don’t believe me? Just look at any of his scenes from Edgar Wright‘s Last Night in Soho, in which he was at once the coolest guy in the room and the one with murder in his heart.

Furthermore, Smith fits the profile of an ideal Bond actor. Like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan before him, Smith has a strong television career, but hasn’t yet become a movie star. He has just enough cache to bring in fans and to do the work, but not so much that the actor will overshadow the character.

Pierce Brosnan

No, I didn’t make a mistake. What if we just brought back Brosnan? Despite starring in two of the worst Bond films, Brosnan never gave up his love for the character and wanted to keep playing the part, even after the disaster that was Die Another Day. As long as No Time to Die already requires a continuity shift, and as long as the movie has Villeneuve on board, a filmmaker who will likely make a single idiosyncratic film instead of a standard franchise entry, why not bring Brosnan back for something different?

Imagine Old Man Bond, the story of a once dashing spy forced to contend with a world he doesn’t understand. Brosnan never totally left the world of espionage and secret service, having appeared in The Matador and in last year’s excellent Black Bag. It wouldn’t be a great leap for him, and it would give Villeneuve a chance to tell a very different type of Bond story.

Plus, it would give Amazon MGM just a little more time to pick their next long-running Bond, since they seem to be making that decision as slowly as possible.

The post The 5 Most Unusual (But Realistic) Choices to Play James Bond appeared first on Den of Geek.

We’ve been having conversations for thousands of years. Whether to convey information, conduct transactions, or simply to check in on one another, people have yammered away, chattering and gesticulating, through spoken conversation for countless generations. Only in the last few millennia have we begun to commit our conversations to writing, and only in the last few decades have we begun to outsource them to the computer, a machine that shows much more affinity for written correspondence than for the slangy vagaries of spoken language.

Computers have trouble because between spoken and written language, speech is more primordial. To have successful conversations with us, machines must grapple with the messiness of human speech: the disfluencies and pauses, the gestures and body language, and the variations in word choice and spoken dialect that can stymie even the most carefully crafted human-computer interaction. In the human-to-human scenario, spoken language also has the privilege of face-to-face contact, where we can readily interpret nonverbal social cues.

In contrast, written language immediately concretizes as we commit it to record and retains usages long after they become obsolete in spoken communication (the salutation “To whom it may concern,” for example), generating its own fossil record of outdated terms and phrases. Because it tends to be more consistent, polished, and formal, written text is fundamentally much easier for machines to parse and understand.

Spoken language has no such luxury. Besides the nonverbal cues that decorate conversations with emphasis and emotional context, there are also verbal cues and vocal behaviors that modulate conversation in nuanced ways: how something is said, not what. Whether rapid-fire, low-pitched, or high-decibel, whether sarcastic, stilted, or sighing, our spoken language conveys much more than the written word could ever muster. So when it comes to voice interfaces—the machines we conduct spoken conversations with—we face exciting challenges as designers and content strategists.

Voice Interactions

We interact with voice interfaces for a variety of reasons, but according to Michael McTear, Zoraida Callejas, and David Griol in The Conversational Interface, those motivations by and large mirror the reasons we initiate conversations with other people, too (). Generally, we start up a conversation because:

• we need something done (such as a transaction),
• we want to know something (information of some sort), or
• we are social beings and want someone to talk to (conversation for conversation’s sake).

These three categories—which I call transactional, informational, and prosocial—also characterize essentially every voice interaction: a single conversation from beginning to end that realizes some outcome for the user, starting with the voice interface’s first greeting and ending with the user exiting the interface. Note here that a conversation in our human sense—a chat between people that leads to some result and lasts an arbitrary length of time—could encompass multiple transactional, informational, and prosocial voice interactions in succession. In other words, a voice interaction is a conversation, but a conversation is not necessarily a single voice interaction.

Purely prosocial conversations are more gimmicky than captivating in most voice interfaces, because machines don’t yet have the capacity to really want to know how we’re doing and to do the sort of glad-handing humans crave. There’s also ongoing debate as to whether users actually prefer the sort of organic human conversation that begins with a prosocial voice interaction and shifts seamlessly into other types. In fact, in Voice User Interface Design, Michael Cohen, James Giangola, and Jennifer Balogh recommend sticking to users’ expectations by mimicking how they interact with other voice interfaces rather than trying too hard to be human—potentially alienating them in the process ().

That leaves two genres of conversations we can have with one another that a voice interface can easily have with us, too: a transactional voice interaction realizing some outcome (“buy iced tea”) and an informational voice interaction teaching us something new (“discuss a musical”).

Transactional voice interactions

Unless you’re tapping buttons on a food delivery app, you’re generally having a conversation—and therefore a voice interaction—when you order a Hawaiian pizza with extra pineapple. Even when we walk up to the counter and place an order, the conversation quickly pivots from an initial smattering of neighborly small talk to the real mission at hand: ordering a pizza (generously topped with pineapple, as it should be).

Alison: Hey, how’s it going?

Burhan: Hi, welcome to Crust Deluxe! It’s cold out there. How can I help you?

Alison: Can I get a Hawaiian pizza with extra pineapple?

Burhan: Sure, what size?

Alison: Large.

Burhan: Anything else?

Alison: No thanks, that’s it.

Burhan: Something to drink?

Alison: I’ll have a bottle of Coke.

Burhan: You got it. That’ll be $13.55 and about fifteen minutes.

Each progressive disclosure in this transactional conversation reveals more and more of the desired outcome of the transaction: a service rendered or a product delivered. Transactional conversations have certain key traits: they’re direct, to the point, and economical. They quickly dispense with pleasantries.

Informational voice interactions

Meanwhile, some conversations are primarily about obtaining information. Though Alison might visit Crust Deluxe with the sole purpose of placing an order, she might not actually want to walk out with a pizza at all. She might be just as interested in whether they serve halal or kosher dishes, gluten-free options, or something else. Here, though we again have a prosocial mini-conversation at the beginning to establish politeness, we’re after much more.

Alison: Hey, how’s it going?

Burhan: Hi, welcome to Crust Deluxe! It’s cold out there. How can I help you?

Alison: Can I ask a few questions?

Burhan: Of course! Go right ahead.

Alison: Do you have any halal options on the menu?

Burhan: Absolutely! We can make any pie halal by request. We also have lots of vegetarian, ovo-lacto, and vegan options. Are you thinking about any other dietary restrictions?

Alison: What about gluten-free pizzas?

Burhan: We can definitely do a gluten-free crust for you, no problem, for both our deep-dish and thin-crust pizzas. Anything else I can answer for you?

Alison: That’s it for now. Good to know. Thanks!

Burhan: Anytime, come back soon!

This is a very different dialogue. Here, the goal is to get a certain set of facts. Informational conversations are investigative quests for the truth—research expeditions to gather data, news, or facts. Voice interactions that are informational might be more long-winded than transactional conversations by necessity. Responses tend to be lengthier, more informative, and carefully communicated so the customer understands the key takeaways.

Voice Interfaces

At their core, voice interfaces employ speech to support users in reaching their goals. But simply because an interface has a voice component doesn’t mean that every user interaction with it is mediated through voice. Because multimodal voice interfaces can lean on visual components like screens as crutches, we’re most concerned in this book with pure voice interfaces, which depend entirely on spoken conversation, lack any visual component whatsoever, and are therefore much more nuanced and challenging to tackle.

Though voice interfaces have long been integral to the imagined future of humanity in science fiction, only recently have those lofty visions become fully realized in genuine voice interfaces.

Interactive voice response (IVR) systems

Though written conversational interfaces have been fixtures of computing for many decades, voice interfaces first emerged in the early 1990s with text-to-speech (TTS) dictation programs that recited written text aloud, as well as speech-enabled in-car systems that gave directions to a user-provided address. With the advent of interactive voice response (IVR) systems, intended as an alternative to overburdened customer service representatives, we became acquainted with the first true voice interfaces that engaged in authentic conversation.

IVR systems allowed organizations to reduce their reliance on call centers but soon became notorious for their clunkiness. Commonplace in the corporate world, these systems were primarily designed as metaphorical switchboards to guide customers to a real phone agent (“Say Reservations to book a flight or check an itinerary”); chances are you will enter a conversation with one when you call an airline or hotel conglomerate. Despite their functional issues and users’ frustration with their inability to speak to an actual human right away, IVR systems proliferated in the early 1990s across a variety of industries (, PDF).

While IVR systems are great for highly repetitive, monotonous conversations that generally don’t veer from a single format, they have a reputation for less scintillating conversation than we’re used to in real life (or even in science fiction).

Screen readers

Parallel to the evolution of IVR systems was the invention of the screen reader, a tool that transcribes visual content into synthesized speech. For Blind or visually impaired website users, it’s the predominant method of interacting with text, multimedia, or form elements. Screen readers represent perhaps the closest equivalent we have today to an out-of-the-box implementation of content delivered through voice.

Among the first screen readers known by that moniker was the Screen Reader for the BBC Micro and NEEC Portable developed by the Research Centre for the Education of the Visually Handicapped (RCEVH) at the University of Birmingham in 1986 (). That same year, Jim Thatcher created the first IBM Screen Reader for text-based computers, later recreated for computers with graphical user interfaces (GUIs) ().

With the rapid growth of the web in the 1990s, the demand for accessible tools for websites exploded. Thanks to the introduction of semantic HTML and especially ARIA roles beginning in 2008, screen readers started facilitating speedy interactions with web pages that ostensibly allow disabled users to traverse the page as an aural and temporal space rather than a visual and physical one. In other words, screen readers for the web “provide mechanisms that translate visual design constructs—proximity, proportion, etc.—into useful information,” writes Aaron Gustafson in A List Apart. “At least they do when documents are authored thoughtfully” ().

Though deeply instructive for voice interface designers, there’s one significant problem with screen readers: they’re difficult to use and unremittingly verbose. The visual structures of websites and web navigation don’t translate well to screen readers, sometimes resulting in unwieldy pronouncements that name every manipulable HTML element and announce every formatting change. For many screen reader users, working with web-based interfaces exacts a cognitive toll.

In Wired, accessibility advocate and voice engineer Chris Maury considers why the screen reader experience is ill-suited to users relying on voice:

From the beginning, I hated the way that Screen Readers work. Why are they designed the way they are? It makes no sense to present information visually and then, and only then, translate that into audio. All of the time and energy that goes into creating the perfect user experience for an app is wasted, or even worse, adversely impacting the experience for blind users. ()

In many cases, well-designed voice interfaces can speed users to their destination better than long-winded screen reader monologues. After all, visual interface users have the benefit of darting around the viewport freely to find information, ignoring areas irrelevant to them. Blind users, meanwhile, are obligated to listen to every utterance synthesized into speech and therefore prize brevity and efficiency. Disabled users who have long had no choice but to employ clunky screen readers may find that voice interfaces, particularly more modern voice assistants, offer a more streamlined experience.

Voice assistants

When we think of voice assistants (the subset of voice interfaces now commonplace in living rooms, smart homes, and offices), many of us immediately picture HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey or hear Majel Barrett’s voice as the omniscient computer in Star Trek. Voice assistants are akin to personal concierges that can answer questions, schedule appointments, conduct searches, and perform other common day-to-day tasks. And they’re rapidly gaining more attention from accessibility advocates for their assistive potential.

Before the earliest IVR systems found success in the enterprise, Apple published a demonstration video in 1987 depicting the Knowledge Navigator, a voice assistant that could transcribe spoken words and recognize human speech to a great degree of accuracy. Then, in 2001, Tim Berners-Lee and others formulated their vision for a Semantic Web “agent” that would perform typical errands like “checking calendars, making appointments, and finding locations” (, behind paywall). It wasn’t until 2011 that Apple’s Siri finally entered the picture, making voice assistants a tangible reality for consumers.

Thanks to the plethora of voice assistants available today, there is considerable variation in how programmable and customizable certain voice assistants are over others (Fig 1.1). At one extreme, everything except vendor-provided features is locked down; for example, at the time of their release, the core functionality of Apple’s Siri and Microsoft’s Cortana couldn’t be extended beyond their existing capabilities. Even today, it isn’t possible to program Siri to perform arbitrary functions, because there’s no means by which developers can interact with Siri at a low level, apart from predefined categories of tasks like sending messages, hailing rideshares, making restaurant reservations, and certain others.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, voice assistants like Amazon Alexa and Google Home offer a core foundation on which developers can build custom voice interfaces. For this reason, programmable voice assistants that lend themselves to customization and extensibility are becoming increasingly popular for developers who feel stifled by the limitations of Siri and Cortana. Amazon offers the Alexa Skills Kit, a developer framework for building custom voice interfaces for Amazon Alexa, while Google Home offers the ability to program arbitrary Google Assistant skills. Today, users can choose from among thousands of custom-built skills within both the Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant ecosystems.

As corporations like Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Google continue to stake their territory, they’re also selling and open-sourcing an unprecedented array of tools and frameworks for designers and developers that aim to make building voice interfaces as easy as possible, even without code.

Often by necessity, voice assistants like Amazon Alexa tend to be monochannel—they’re tightly coupled to a device and can’t be accessed on a computer or smartphone instead. By contrast, many development platforms like Google’s Dialogflow have introduced omnichannel capabilities so users can build a single conversational interface that then manifests as a voice interface, textual chatbot, and IVR system upon deployment. I don’t prescribe any specific implementation approaches in this design-focused book, but in Chapter 4 we’ll get into some of the implications these variables might have on the way you build out your design artifacts.

Voice Content

Simply put, voice content is content delivered through voice. To preserve what makes human conversation so compelling in the first place, voice content needs to be free-flowing and organic, contextless and concise—everything written content isn’t.

Our world is replete with voice content in various forms: screen readers reciting website content, voice assistants rattling off a weather forecast, and automated phone hotline responses governed by IVR systems. In this book, we’re most concerned with content delivered auditorily—not as an option, but as a necessity.

For many of us, our first foray into informational voice interfaces will be to deliver content to users. There’s only one problem: any content we already have isn’t in any way ready for this new habitat. So how do we make the content trapped on our websites more conversational? And how do we write new copy that lends itself to voice interactions?

Lately, we’ve begun slicing and dicing our content in unprecedented ways. Websites are, in many respects, colossal vaults of what I call macrocontent: lengthy prose that can extend for infinitely scrollable miles in a browser window, like microfilm viewers of newspaper archives. Back in 2002, well before the present-day ubiquity of voice assistants, technologist Anil Dash defined microcontent as permalinked pieces of content that stay legible regardless of environment, such as email or text messages:

A day’s weather forcast [sic], the arrival and departure times for an airplane flight, an abstract from a long publication, or a single instant message can all be examples of microcontent. ()

I’d update Dash’s definition of microcontent to include all examples of bite-sized content that go well beyond written communiqués. After all, today we encounter microcontent in interfaces where a small snippet of copy is displayed alone, unmoored from the browser, like a textbot confirmation of a restaurant reservation. Microcontent offers the best opportunity to gauge how your content can be stretched to the very edges of its capabilities, informing delivery channels both established and novel.

As microcontent, voice content is unique because it’s an example of how content is experienced in time rather than in space. We can glance at a digital sign underground for an instant and know when the next train is arriving, but voice interfaces hold our attention captive for periods of time that we can’t easily escape or skip, something screen reader users are all too familiar with.

Because microcontent is fundamentally made up of isolated blobs with no relation to the channels where they’ll eventually end up, we need to ensure that our microcontent truly performs well as voice content—and that means focusing on the two most important traits of robust voice content: voice content legibility and voice content discoverability.

Fundamentally, the legibility and discoverability of our voice content both have to do with how voice content manifests in perceived time and space.