Helen Skelton, Matt Baker, and more confirmed for Great Yorkshire Show
Celebrities from the farming world have been unveiled for the Ariat GYS Stage at the 166th Great Yorkshire Show.
TV presenters Helen Skelton and Matt Baker MBE, Rob and Dave Nicholson of Cannon Hall Farm, and Peter Wright of Channel 5's The Yorkshire Vet, will appear on the Ariat GYS Stage in a series of chat shows hosted by TV presenter Christine Talbot.
For the first time, the Fashion Show will also be held on the Ariat GYS Stage.
Farming YouTuber and TikTok star Joe Seels will be on the catwalk every day, and radio presenter Georgey Spanswick will appear during Tuesday's Fashion Show.
The Ariat GYS Stage timetable will be the same on each day of the Great Yorkshire Show, which runs, this year, from Tuesday, July 8 to Friday, July 11.
Celebrity chat shows are scheduled to take place at 11am and 3pm each day, while the Fashion Show will be at 1pm each day.
Tickets are only available to purchase in advance (not on the door), with more information available at https://greatyorkshireshow.co.uk/ticket-information/
The Great Yorkshire Show YouTube channel is available at https://www.youtube.com/user/GreatYorkshireShow
The Great Yorkshire Show app can be downloaded via https://greatyorkshireshow.co.uk/gys-app/
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
36 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Where Does ‘Doctor Who' Go From Here?
The end of the latest season of Doctor Who would be controversial for a good many reasons beyond its shocking cliffhanger ending—from its confounding narrative choices to its complete character re-writing of its latest companion—but perhaps what has made it reach another level of ire is that, for the foreseeable future, this might be it. Right now, the continuation of Doctor Who on TV is in about as unsure a place as it can be for the first time in 20 years. Of course, the show has contemplated disaster across those two decades, but we mostly learned of those moments well after the fact: on the public front, Doctor Who persisted into the institution it has become, in spite of it all. But Doctor Who ends its latest run of episodes without that public acknowledgement of its own inevitability. For all the talk of scripts and eventual, possible continuity, right now there is currently no further Doctor Who confirmed beyond a five-episode spinoff series, War Between the Land and the Sea. The show will not air this holiday season; for the first time since it returned, a third season of this Disney-BBC partnership era has not been commissioned. Doctor Who, on-screen at least, is currently standing on the edge of a proverbial cliff. That does not mean that Doctor Who is necessarily dead. Doctor Who will always live on in some form or another: it did back in 1989 when it was first cancelled, thriving in books, audio dramas, the brief spike of the 1996 TV movie, all before it came roaring back to life again in 2005. It also doesn't mean that there aren't options for the series, either, even in this moment of uncertainty. Let's explore a few of them. Option 1: Doctor Who Continues As-Is Of all the options on the table right now, this seems like the least likely. Not because of the perspective of Doctor Who's shaky reputation coming out if its finale, and its wild stunt-casting Hail Mary to close out Ncuti Gatwa's time on the show (it's currently unclear whether or not Billie Piper is going to be a full-fledged 16th incarnation of the Doctor; much like the show's current status, details about that are still up the air), but because at this point it's pretty much logistically impossible for the series to make a return any time soon unless it enters production immediately. A week out from the finale and with no official statement on the renewal of the BBC's licensing partnership with Disney—with the latter already having made it clear that there was going to be a review of Doctor Who's viewership across the latest season before any decision about the deal—it seems unlikely that we're going to hear anything soon, whether Disney backs out or carries on financially supporting the series. A Christmas special for 2025 is already out of the picture at this point; one was not included in the original agreement. And even if we got news of a deal imminently, the likeliness of a new season of Doctor Who being broadcast before 2027 narrows to the point of impossibility with each passing day. The question is, however, even if Doctor Who was renewed in the immediate future, should it continue as-is? It's become clear—and it's also clearly part of the reason why an official renewal didn't come with the conclusion of the latest season—that Doctor Who has struggled in the past few years to reclaim a wider audience again. Putting aside right-wing culture war accusations of overt 'wokeness' in the series (it has arguably been an era where Doctor Who's long-standing progressive themes have never been so purely surface-level), a mix of a streaming-first approach that has shaken up broadcast times in Doctor Who's home nation and plotlines that are failing to energize either diehard fans or new audiences has led to the series being on a ratings decline. In a period that was meant to be a new onboarding point for curious global audiences—a new Doctor, a new companion, a distancing for recent and further flung continuity threads—the series has instead wrapped itself in increasing insularity, building its dramatic climaxes on arcane connections to Who's past and season arcs that build towards the return of increasingly obscure old villains, while also paradoxically failing to capitalize on those returning characters. Even if Doctor Who was greenlit for more seasons, whether or not its current self is working would remain uncertain. Option 2: Doctor Who Takes a Break So maybe the show takes a break that's longer than the logistically enforced couple of years it would take to continue on as it has been. Whether that's three years rather than two, whether it's three or four or even five, it would give the show the chance to have a creative reset behind the scenes and return with a renewed plan for its future and a renewed energy with a completely new Doctor and companion. That doesn't necessarily mean that much changes behind the scenes, but it could depending on the length of the break. We have, at least, the upcoming War Between the Land and the Sea to act as something already made that could be broadcast in the place of a traditional season. But given the current uncertainty as to what Billie Piper's role in this transitional period could be—whether she's the Doctor at all, whether she's a regeneration similar to David Tennant's 14th and won't stick around long, or whether she is indeed a fully-fledged incarnation that will stay as the face of the series for multiple seasons—perhaps we could even see something akin to what happened with Doctor Who in 2009. Then, as the series prepared to transition between the exit of both its main star in David Tennant and its creative leadership in showrunner Russell T Davies, Who went on a quasi-break for the year, instead broadcasting four one-off special episodes throughout 2009, while a new creative team under Steven Moffat began working on getting the next era of the show ready for broadcast in 2010. Maybe after War Between the Land and the Sea we'll see a similar 'specials' era for Piper, before a return to regular seasons with a new incarnation of the Doctor. Regardless, it would give time for Doctor Who's creative team to take a look at the last couple of years of the show, see what's working and what isn't, and lay out a new plan for what the series could eventually look like upon its return. Option 3: Doctor Who Dies (But Not Really) Or maybe, this is it. In not having a deal renewed at all, whether with Disney's help or without it, Doctor Who is effectively cancelled as it was back in 1989. On screen Who goes out with Piper's smiling face cutting to credits, a more open-ended but similar conclusion akin to the Seventh Doctor and Ace walking off into adventures unseen at the end of 'Survival.' Of course, this means that we know that even if Doctor Who on TV is dead, it really isn't dead at all. Just as was the case nearly 40 years ago, the show's first wandering into 'The Wilderness Years,' as they came to be known in Doctor Who fandom, didn't really mean that Who ceased to exist. Virgin's New Adventures novels carried on the stories of the Doctor and Ace, and yet further beyond, providing a treasure trove of stories pushing the world of Doctor Who beyond the imaginings of its televised self. The Big Finish audio drama series began in 1999 and continues to this day, simultaneously giving Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor from the TV movie a whole life of adventures while also revisiting Doctors past, enriching their own histories with more stories and spinoffs. In fits and starts, we did still get glimpses of new Doctor Who media, from the cheesy reunions of Dimensions in Time, to the aforementioned attempted revival with the 1996 movie, and then things like the online web animation Scream of the Shalka in 2003. But while Doctor Who wasn't regularly on TV any more, it was far from dormant. We've already seen the series survive one such period, only to come back and change the face of genre television all over again. Who's to say it couldn't do the same again? After all, cheating death is part of the key to Doctor Who's longevity!
Geek Tyrant
2 hours ago
- Geek Tyrant
Danny Boyle Explains 28 YEARS LATER Is the "Opposite" of What You'd Expect from a Zombie Sequel — GeekTyrant
If you're expecting 28 Years Later to go big in the way most sequels do with more infected, more explosions, global stakes, director Danny Boyle has a curveball for you. The long-awaited follow-up to his game-changing 2002 film 28 Days Later isn't trying to outdo the apocalypse. It's trying to understand what's left after it. Speaking to IGN, Boyle revealed that he and writer Alex Garland initially flirted with the typical sequel playbook. 'In fact, Alex wrote one script at one point, but they were kind of what you'd expect, and by that I mean things that you expect from a sequel, like the virus is weaponized by a military or a government or a shady [organization]... That kind of thing. And neither of us were very taken by it.' Instead of following the infection across continents in a World War Z -style expansion, Boyle and Garland made a sharp U-turn. They chose to pull the focus inward. 'We began to discuss this idea of doing a much bigger project, which was a series of films that sort of did the opposite of spreading it to Europe and the world.' This reflective approach lines up with what Boyle believes horror can do best by holding up a mirror. 'We turned back and looked at ourselves and we thought … it was very much like an England [type] film. So we kind of narrowed it down. We did the opposite of what you'd expect and it was because we had a lot to think about.' That "thinking" touches on the real-world fractures that have emerged in the years since 28 Days Later first hit theaters. Boyle mentions Brexit and the UK's shifting identity, hinting that this new chapter won't just be about rage-infected hordes, but about how a nation processes trauma. 'That's what you use these films for. They're not lectures or anything like that, but they do reflect, or there is a reflection in them, of where you are and what's happened to you really as individuals and as people." The sequel stars Jodie Comer, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Ralph Fiennes, and centers on a group of survivors who've been living in relative isolation on a remote island. When they return to the mainland, they're confronted not just with the infected, but with the haunting question of what's changed, and what hasn't. If 28 Days Later redefined what a zombie film could be in the early 2000s, 28 Years Later is looking to flip the genre on its head once again, this time with an eerie calm and a deeper question at its core. 28 Years Later opens in theaters June 20, 2025.
Geek Vibes Nation
3 hours ago
- Geek Vibes Nation
10 Most Difficult Arcade Games In History
If you think modern microtransactions are bad, try playing some classic arcade games sometime. Sure, the game might only cost a quarter or 50 cents, but that's just the starting price. Once you run out of lives, you'll have to refill the machine. In theory, you could complete an arcade game for just a quarter. In reality, it would take weeks or months of practice. It was not uncommon to spend £20, £50 or even more to see the ending of some old arcade games. And, of course, that was just for one playthrough. Yes, classic games were very different from what we have in the 21st century with its multitude of mods and options. But even considering that these games were designed to squeeze as much money out of you as possible, some of them. 10. Robotron: 2084 Smash TV is a notoriously tough game, and it becomes even more difficult when using two joysticks — a setup popularized by its spiritual predecessor Robotron: 2084, developed by the same Eugene Jarvis. From the moment you start, Robotron throws waves of enemies at you from all directions, filling the screen with chaos and projectiles. Combine that relentless action with 40-year-old visuals that can blur what's actually happening, and you've got a game that was punishing back then — and nearly impossible for modern players used to cleaner design. The controls are complex, and in many emulated versions or console ports, they become even trickier to handle. Still, for those who enjoy pure arcade challenges, it's a nostalgic masterpiece. And for gamers seeking instant thrills and fast-paced action, there are modern alternatives too — from twin-stick shooters to bonus-based online games like those found at Richard Casino app download, which deliver quick, rewarding gameplay in a very different (but equally addictive) form. 9. Defender Side-scrolling shooters have always been known for their high difficulty. This was true of the very first game in the genre, Defender. In theory, it should have been a simple mission. Shoot the alien invaders and save the astronauts. But the enemies attack quickly and become increasingly unpredictable. And the hyperspace function does not guarantee safety. It can move you to a more advantageous part of the screen or lead to instant death. But for the most part, Defender is at least honest. Your first few attempts will most likely result in a quick defeat, but practice can lead to pretty good results. And death is usually the result of your own stupid mistakes, not unfair AI—kind of like playing a kenku DnD, where creative limitations force you to think more carefully rather than rely on brute force. 8. Zaxxon As we've seen, when games start experimenting with new ideas, they tend to become much more difficult than the games that inspired them. Zaxxon is actually one of the first games with an isometric perspective. This gave it a truly unique look that helped it stand out in crowded arcades (and which is still relevant today), but it also meant that players now had to keep track of their height and position to avoid certain obstacles. Add to that the fact that your ship is constantly moving forward at a speed that is impossible for you to comprehend (and that you can run out of fuel), and it's easy to see why so many playthroughs quickly end in disaster. Nevertheless, it's still a very fun and unusual game. 7. Storm Storm remains one of the most unique games ever offered by arcade machines. At a time when most developers were trying to replicate the success of Pac-Man or Space Invaders, its joystick controller and vector graphics (an early attempt at first-person gameplay) stood out as something completely new for the era. 'Storm' is more like a psychedelic experience than a traditional arcade game. The unique gameplay is one source of difficulty, but there is also a lot of content here, and it's easy to get lost if you try to complete all 99 levels (and even more). Of course, you can choose which level to start with, but that won't help much if you don't have the skills to take on the game's ruthless enemies. 6. Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 Fighting games have always been known for their short story modes. If you're good at them, you can get through most of them in 10-15 minutes. Therefore, early arcade fighting games had a solution that ensured most players would continue playing: absolutely brutal, blatantly unfair difficulty. Playing Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 is like playing a slot machine. You only win when the AI randomly decides it's time for you to win. To be honest, you'll probably defeat the first couple of opponents without much trouble, but around the third match, the computer will turn into Agent Smith from The Matrix and resist everything you throw at it as soon as you make a move. It's silly and manipulative. Fortunately, such tricks are much less common now that fighting games have left arcades. 5. Missile Command Missile Command remains one of the most intense games despite its apparent simplicity. You control three anti-missile batteries. But the incoming missiles are unstoppable, and your ammunition is limited. Of course, you can stop some of these missiles, but not all of them. You will never be able to stop them all. A devastating defeat is inevitable. The only question is how soon it will come. A handful of experienced players have completed all 256 levels of Missile Command; it takes hours (a lifetime in arcade game terms). Most players don't even come close. After all, the goal of Missile Command is not to win, but to resist the inevitable for as long as possible. 4. Stargate Stargate is a sequel to Defender, also known as Defender II in some versions, so that should give you some idea of the difficulty level. While the basic gameplay remains the same, everything now happens even faster, and new enemies have more chaotic attack patterns and even homing attacks. But what really makes Stargate such a challenging game is that no matter how much time you spend learning the game, pattern recognition will only help you so much. This is one of those games that tries its hardest to push your hand-eye coordination to the limit. If you lack skills in this area, you will always struggle to get a high score. 3. Ghosts 'n Goblins What list of difficult games would be complete without Ghosts 'n Goblins? The NES port may be more well-known these days, but the franchise actually began with arcade machines. The original arcade game is just as incredibly difficult as its console version. In fact, it may even be more difficult, as there were no cheats for this version of the game back in the day. You were either good enough to beat the game or you died. A lot. And you just kept paying to keep playing. Although this game is more 'fair' than other arcade games, it is still designed to make you spend as much money as possible. Two hits kill you. Enemies appear randomly from all sides. Projectiles can fill the entire screen, and you have to perform many difficult jumps. And you have to go through all of this twice to see the real ending of the game. Good luck. 2. Gravitar The lead developers of Gravitar have publicly admitted that they cannot complete even the most difficult levels and certainly did not expect players to be able to do so. That alone should tell you almost everything you need to know about the incredibly high level of difficulty. Everything in this game is designed to test your patience. First, there's the engine controls. Yes, Asteroids was a pioneer in this area, and many gamers were familiar with this type of control when Gravitar came out, but it's still considered very sensitive. Then you have to consider how important gravity is to the gameplay. Wherever you go, it always pulls you somewhere, so you have to take that into account. But then Gravitar starts to mock you by adding reverse gravity and, eventually, invisible landscapes. In the end, you will experience the joys of reverse gravity in invisible landscapes. If it had a controller that could be thrown across the room, most players would have done so by that point. 1. Sinister 'Beware, I am alive.' These iconic words from Sinister have meant almost instant death for countless gamers over the years. In terms of gameplay, Sinister is actually one of the most innovative games of its time, although these innovations are what make it so challenging. You find yourself in an open space arena and must start collecting 'Sinibombs' by shooting at planetoid-like objects. This is the only weapon that can defeat Sinister when he awakens. Oh, and if you don't destroy it quickly enough, its minions will be able to regenerate. Although Sinister isn't actually on the playing field at the start of each level, it quickly assembles itself. When he's ready, he charges at you with the fury of an enraged grizzly bear. One hit and your ship is destroyed. Basically, everything works against you from the start to keep your score low and you keep putting quarters into the game. Rarely does a game last more than a few minutes.
