Hit Netflix reality show given a third series with biggest ever prize pot
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
AN acclaimed Netflix reality show looks set to return for a third series with an even bigger prize pot.
Ahead of the premiere of the second series, Netflix has confirmed that Squid Game: The Challenge will also have a third series.
Sign up for the Entertainment newsletter
Sign up
3
Squid Game: The Challenge has been handed a third series
Credit: PETE DADDS/NETFLIX
3
The second series of the show is still yet to air
Credit: PETE DADDS/NETFLIX
The reality competition show was spawned as a spin-off of the acclaimed drama series, Squid Game.
In one of TV's biggest jackpots, players have the chance to win up to a whopping $4.56million.
It launched with a first series last year and earlier this week, Netflix confirmed that a second series would land in November this year.
It is expected that the third series will follow next year.
The challenge show has become known for its notoriously tough tasks - some of which have pushed contestants to the limit.
One contestant on the first series previously lifted the lid on what filming was like for the programme.
Elliott Burgess was number 429 in the show out of a total of 456 players.
The Surrey-based contestant reached the second-to-last challenge and secured 7th place when the winner, Mai, discovered his involvement through his suspicious beard scratch.
Elliot revealed that contestants were allowed 10 minutes of fresh air every two days and had no contact with the outside world.
They had no idea what time it was, as the masked men decided when it was lights out.
Squid Game, Season 3, Final Games Trailer
Elliott assumed he had gotten enough sleep. But he was starving.
He recalled: "It was tough because they had to keep it as immersive as possible. It's $4.56m, they're not just going to give you that for free. They had to make it as challenging as possible".
Squid Game: The Challenge returns 4th November on Netflix.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Out
4 hours ago
- Time Out
L.A.'s new Photo Booth Museum captures a different era of selfies
In Los Angeles, analog photo booths have been growing in popularity, and these film photo booths can be increasingly found scattered throughout the city. It's official: Vintage photo booths are having a moment. Over their digital counterparts, the cool crowd is opting for old-school photo booth portraits developed on the spot and printed on black-and-white film. I get the appeal—after a recent visit to Paris, a film strip of four shots of my fiancé and me from a 1960s Montmartre photo booth is one of my favorite souvenirs. The tactile strip captures a specific moment in time—and feels more significant than dozens of attempts for the perfect selfie. Leading the resurgence is Bay Area-based photo booth supplier Photomatica, which has seen its business boom in recent years—especially when Chrissy Teigen ordered one of its restored vintage booths for herself. Photomatica also custom-makes retro-looking digital photo booths, which can be found in venues like Desert 5 Spot, El Cid and the Fonda and El Rey theaters (it also just unveiled an analog booth at the Beverly Hilton last month). But after opening a Photo Booth Museum in San Francisco's Castro District earlier this year, the company has brought the concept here, to the heart of Silver Lake. Starting Thursday, July 17, for the first time, you'll have four analog photo booths in one place—plus one vintage-style (and adorable) digital photo booth from the 2020s—to choose from for your own personal photo shoot. Styled as a 1970s living room, the 'museum' is not a museum, as such. True, there are little print-outs detailing the history of each machine, but beyond that, don't expect to learn a ton about the inner workings of photo booths. But be honest, that's probably not why you're here, anyway. The vintage machines—made by L.A.-based photo booth manufacturer Auto-Photo—date back to the 1950s, '60s and '70s, and have been lovingly restored by Photomatica so they're in pristine working condition. This is even more impressive when you learn that there are only some 250 functional analog photo booths still in existence. Inside the vintage booths, be ready to strike a pose as soon as you push the button—you get very little warning. And afterward, expect to wait three to five minutes for your film strip to print (still pretty remarkable, when you think about it). When the strip does come out, be careful—it'll be wet with the chemicals used in the rapid, darkroom-style development process. There are blow-dryers plugged in throughout the space for this very purpose. My favorites were the Model 14—the first to your left as you walk in—with a groovy, heart-shaped pattern as the background, and the earlier Model 11 from the 1950s, which sports a starry backdrop. Many of the machines have handy mirrors on the outside so you can check your appearance before you head in for your close-up. All of the analog booths print in black-and-white, which I was fine with (I think I actually prefer the way I look in grayscale). And as someone who admittedly doesn't love having my picture taken, by the time I got to the third booth, I was definitely having fun with it. Some machines produce more washed-out results, while some prints come out darker, but I found the lighting in each booth to be surprisingly flattering—and besides, perfect uniformity isn't the point here. But—not to be basic—the contemporary, millennial-pink take on a vintage booth did call out to me. And as far as digital photo booths go, it offered a superior experience to most you'll find in a bar. You could choose from color or black-and-white photos, and the color option still had a 1970s vibe, with its orange-curtain background. Plus, it admittedly is nice to be able to preview your shot on a screen and know when the flash is about to go off. The digital is also the best option for if you're in a hurry—the digital photos print instantly—and it's the only one in the museum that supplies you with two prints of your photo session, perfect for you and a friend or date. There's no admission fee, but you can expect to pay $7.50 for each turn in a film photo booth (which gets a little confusing when you see the '25 cents' and '50 cents' signs on the outside of these booths from back in the day) or $6.50 in the digital booth. That adds up to $36.50 if you want to sample each once—plus an extra $10 if you want to hit up the key chain booth, where you can choose one of your shots to frame and decorate with charms. That fee also includes a scan of your photos—you'll give an employee at the desk your email address and will receive a digital backup of your pics. The preview was incredibly popular (read: crowded), so if that's any indication, expect to wait in line for a bit outside, then to wait in an additional line for each individual photo booth. That being said, with my folder full of mementos that I'll likely hold onto forever, the wait ultimately felt worth it. The museum is on the corner of West Sunset Boulevard and Hyperion Avenue—a very central Silver Lake location—so there are lots of walkable spots in the surrounding blocks. Typically, a photo booth moment is a fun addendum to a night out, not the whole attraction. But I can see the Photo Booth Museum being a popular stop on girls' nights out—two people can fit into each booth comfortably, but more are welcome to squeeze in for a group shot. Or you could always pair a photo shoot with a few scoops at Salt & Straw or the adjacent Pazzo Gelato, followed by a pint at 33 Taps —sounds like the perfect summer date night. The Photo Booth Museum is located at 3827 West Sunset Boulevard. It's open daily from 1pm to 9pm. Admission is free, but analog booths cost $7.50, and the digital booth costs $6.50.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Emily Ratajkowski flashes cleavage in racy peekaboo dress as she reveals she's 'decentering' men in her life
Emily Ratajkowski stunned in four ensembles as she promoted her new Netflix series Too Much in New York City on Wednesday. The supermodel, 34 - who recently opened up about motherhood as she hit back at critics - also dished on 'decentering' men as she stopped by the Today show. The beauty — whose ex-boyfriend is expecting a child — first turned heads wearing a long-sleeved, scooped neck top as well as colorful buttons on the front. Ratajkowski additionally slipped into a pair of fitted, black capri pants and open-toed black pumps to complete her summer look. Her long, brunette locks were parted in the middle and effortlessly flowed down past her shoulders in light waves. Emily opted for minimal accessories to allow the outfit to be the main focal point, and added a pair of mini silver earrings as well as fashionable shades. The supermodel - who recently opened up about motherhood as she hit back at critics - also dished on 'decentering' men as she stopped by the Today show She was seen showing off the stylish ensemble as she headed towards the studio ahead of her appearance on Today. The former Nickelodeon actress later joined hosts Jenna Bush Hager and guest co-host Willie Geist to talk about her role in the new Netflix show Too Much, which was released on the streaming site on July 10. At one point, Emily was questioned if it was true that she has been 'deprioritizing' men in her life. The model was previously married to Sebastian Bear-McClard from 2018 until their divorce in 2022. The former couple - who share son Sly, four - had split amid accusations that he was a 'serial cheater.' 'Well, the kids say decentering,' Ratajkowski lightly joked, and elaborated to the Today hosts that it was true. 'I am a single mom and I just really, I think as I've gotten older I started to really value community with other women particularly. And that's definitely a priority for me.' She added, 'I think it's one of the best parts about living in New York as I get to meet so many amazing women and queer people. And yeah, I really value community these days.' Following her split from her husband, Emily seemingly came out as bisexual in October 2022 after posting a TikTok clip. The halter-styled ensemble had a large cutout on the front which offered a sultry flare and she also slipped into the same pair of heels from earlier in the day The beauty first turned heads wearing a long-sleeved, black top with a scooped neckline as well as colorful buttons on the front Ratajkowski additionally slipped into a pair of fitted, black capri pants and open-toed black pumps to complete her summer look The media personality reacted to a video that asked those who 'identify as bisexual' if they 'own a green velvet couch.' In the reel, the star could be seen lounging on a sofa and then panned the camera to show off her green velvet couch. The following month, she expressed to Harper's Bazaar: 'I think sexuality is on a sliding scale. I don't really believe in straight people.' Ratajkowski later said, 'I want to be able to have fun with how I present myself in the world without feeling like I'm a bad feminist or a good feminist. Duh. I don't want to be a part of your club if you don't want to have me. It's fine!' Emily filtered through a busy schedule on Wednesday as she had three other outfit changes during her busy day of promoting Too Much. In the series - which was created by Lena Dunham and her husband Luis Felber - the star portrays the character of Wendy Jones. As she arrived to film Late Night With Seth Meyers, the model put on a leggy display wearing a vibrant blue snakeskin minidress from Gucci. The halter-styled ensemble had a large cutout on the front which offered a sultry flare and she also slipped into the same pair of heels from earlier in the day. The Calvin Klein look comprised of a fitted blazer which was secured with buttons on the front as well as matching trousers Ratajkowski also flaunted her chic sense of style in a white suit as she visited CBS Mornings. The Calvin Klein look comprised of a fitted blazer which was secured with buttons on the front as well as matching trousers. During her interview on the talk show, Emily reflected on her recent 34th birthday last month and goals that she has for the future. 'Well, I've always wanted to be on the other side of the camera,' she said, and explained that when it comes to modeling, there is little creative control. 'I think acting can be much more expressive and a little different. But as somebody who has written a book, I think kind of marrying all these things are what I'm looking for.' Back in 2021, she notably published a book titled My Body which landed on the New York Times bestseller list. Lastly, Emily opted to cut a casual figure in a shirt that had 'I'm a speed skater' printed on the front as well as black capri leggings. She also stuck with the same black pumps for all of her differing outfits. Too Much - which also stars Will Sharpe and Megan Stalter - was created by both Lena and husband Luis Felber. The premise is: 'After a breakup, New York workaholic Jessica moves to London planning on being alone. She meets Felix who causes her to reconsider finding love again,' per IMDB. Dunham has also been working on a romcom called Good Sex - which stars Natalie Portman in a leading role. Last month on June 7, Emily rung in her 34th birthday and was joined by close pals as she twerked the night away for a lighthearted bash. In an assortment of memorable snaps from the party, the model revealed that she was a given a cake that was in the shape of her bikini-clad behind.
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Turgid, vacuous, portentous: The Sandman reviewed
One of the great things about getting older is no longer feeling under any obligation to try to like stuff you were doomed never to like. Steely Dan, Dickens, Stravinsky, Henry James, George Eliot, Wagner, the Grateful Dead, Robin Williams, the collected films of Wes Anderson and Tim Burton, Graham Greene, the Clash, The Young Ones, Seinfeld, Emily Dickinson – obviously I could go on. I don't like them; I never did like them; but the difference between then and now is that now I know I'm right, whereas then I thought it might be a personal deficiency. Also fairly high on my 'No' list would be superhero comics, superhero movies and late-1980s graphic novels, including the excessively fawned-upon Watchmen. This was in the period of my life when I was trying to eke out my last flush of youth by growing my hair long, wearing black DM boots, dropping LSD and going to indie gigs (while trying to hold down a job at the Telegraph). If you did those things, it was sort of taken for granted that you were also into contemporaneous literature like Tank Girl (a comic about a skinny girl with a stupid haircut and a tank who had sex with kangaroos, or something) and the Sandman comic book series of Neil Gaiman. But I wasn't. Today I feel vindicated, especially in the case of Gaiman, who looks in serious danger of being cancelled (at least by studios such as Netflix, which has put all future adaptations on hold) as a result of sexual abuse allegations levelled against him by at least eight women (which he denies). Normally, I wouldn't drag up such tittle-tattle but here I think it's highly germane to the charge I'm about to level against Gaiman, which is this: his excruciatingly woke-avant-la-lettre writings helped to generate the cultural climate that is now devouring him. To understand what I mean, try – I dare you – sitting through an episode of the latest season of The Sandman. If you last more than ten minutes, I shall be very surprised. My immediate family don't tend to agree on much, TV-wise (or anything-else-wise) these days, but the four of us were unanimous: this was turgid, vacuous, grindingly portentous, achingly dull drama of a standard so abysmally low it was almost cherishable. Think of all the things you most hate about the modern world. If you're a cantankerous, reactionary old fart like me, it will definitely include models who've been chosen not because they're pretty but because they're fat and/or ugly (something which we must learn to find attractive); actors who've been cast because they have the right skin colour rather than because they can act; and the whole general culture of rainbow flags, blue hair, indeterminability of gender, massive fragility, weaponised solipsism and the desperate need to find offence that has gripped the perfervid imaginations of (at least some of) the youth. Well, I blame Neil Gaiman for this. Not totally, for I'm sure there are many other offenders we could truffle out. But if you're in any doubt that he's at least partly responsible, simply look at the casting, tone and aura of The Sandman. It's diversity, anti-lookist, trans, gay – you name it – central. Which you could forgive, just about, possibly, if the politically correct homily to which you were being treated was leavened by an element of humour, or sparkling dialogue, or plot. But it's not. It's merely a bunch of mopey goth types in an over-elaborate computer-generated fantasy landscape striking attitudes, declaiming cod pieties and being generally inert and miserable. I'm not even going to try to describe the plot for you because it barely exists. Essentially, the protagonist, called Dream (Tom Sturridge), is in charge of the world we all go to when we're asleep and where pretty much anything can happen. Into which nebulous space Gaiman has shoehorned every mythical or supernatural figure you've ever heard of, from Death (who is black and female, obviously) and Lucifer (Gwendoline Christie, as in the big knight woman from Game of Thrones) to Thor – together with some annoying characters of his own invention, including Desire, Delirium and Despair, a talking dog and a foul-mouthed pumpkin-headed scarecrow. Where, though, is the actual artistry at work here? When, for example, we see Lucifer – who is in charge of Hell – deciding that she no longer wants the job and so gets Dream to cut her wings off so she can go and do something else, what exactly is this telling us about anything which matters, other than that Gaiman has decided to drive a coach and horses through millennia's worth of religious tradition and just make a famous supernatural character do something weird and unexpected and kind of whimsical and cute? This is my beef with Gaiman: not that he is – possibly – a bit of a perv, but that he is a second-rate literary talent whose fame and prosperity derive not from his creative genius, but rather from pushing the woke agenda that the comic book industry found congenial to push. Now the revolution has eaten one of its own, as revolutions always do. Good riddance.
