Latest news with #Anemone
Geek Tyrant
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Geek Tyrant
Daniel Day-Lewis as Magneto? The Most Ridiculous X-MEN Casting Rumor Yet — GeekTyrant
We're officially deep into the wild west of MCU rumor season, and the latest nugget circulating online is one of the most outrageous yet. Daniel Day-Lewis, the famously reclusive, three-time Oscar-winning actor, is reportedly being eyed to play Magneto in Marvel's upcoming X-Men reboot. This unhinged-sounding claim comes from scooper @MyTimeToShineH, who posted simply, 'Daniel Day-Lewis is being eyed to play Magneto in the MCU.' As you might imagine, that enough to set social media ablaze. It also follows a previous rumor that Marvel was eyeing Denzel Washington for the role, so clearly, the casting speculation machine is throwing prestige names into the blender right now. Day-Lewis playing Magneto is hard to imagine, but not for lack of talent. He's widely regarded as one of the greatest actors to ever step in front of a camera. With roles in My Left Foot , There Will Be Blood , and Lincoln , it's hard to imagine him come out of retirement to play a comic book character for Marvel. I mean, maybe someone at Marvel Studios mentioned the name as a joke, like, 'Yeah, maybe we can get Daniel Day-Lewis to play Magneto!' The actor recently came out of retirement to star in his son's film project Anemone , which he co-wrote, but once he's done with that I imagine he'll go back into retirement. And if he;'s going to come out of retirement again, it's not going to be for a Marvel movie! Jumping from a deeply personal indie project into the Marvel machine? That's one hell of a leap. However, Daniel Day-Lewis would be awesome in the role, and he would also be the the first actor with Jewish heritage to portray Magneto in live-action. The character's identity as a Holocaust survivor and Jewish antihero has long been central to his backstory. As of now, Marvel has not confirmed any casting decisions for Magneto in the MCU's X-Men reboot, and they probably won't for a while. Would Daniel Day-Lewis ever actually say yes to Magneto? Almost definitely not. Do we want to live in a universe where he does? Sure… why not!
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Anemone, Daniel Day-Lewis' Comeback Film, Gets October Release
The post Anemone, Daniel Day-Lewis' Comeback Film, Gets October Release appeared first on Consequence. Focus Features has set an October 2025 release for Anemone, which will mark Daniel Day-Lewis' first on-screen performance since 2017. Daniel Day-Lewis co-wrote the film with his son, Ronan Day-Lewis, who is making his directorial debut. The script 'explores family bonds, specifically those involving fathers, sons and brothers.' Anemone will receive a limited release on October 3rd before expanding wide on October 10th. Popular Posts Drummer Chris Adler Opens Up on What Led to Firing from Lamb of God Stephen King's The Long Walk Movie Gets Long-Awaited Trailer: Watch Jazz Pianist Matthew Shipp Derides André 3000's New Piano Project: "Complete and Utter Crap" Say It in Ghor: How Andor Brought a Brand New Language to Star Wars Metallica Perform "Enter Sandman" at Virginia Tech Stadium 25 Years After It Became School Tradition: Watch Nicolas Cage Says He Is "Mistaken" for Nick Cave Almost Every Day Subscribe to Consequence's email digest and get the latest breaking news in music, film, and television, tour updates, access to exclusive giveaways, and more straight to your inbox.
Indian Express
04-05-2025
- Science
- Indian Express
6 fascinating creatures that do not have a brain
Humans rely on their brain for everything. It is essential for survival for most living creatures. Surprisingly, some animals do not have brains. But how do they survive? They certainly do not function like humans. They have different challenges in life and have evolved using their own unique adaptations. They rely on basic biological traits for their survival. Here are 6 animals that function without a brain: Caribbean box jellyfish Caribbean Box Jellyfish are mostly found in the Carribean Sea. Even though they lack a central brain and only have a few thousand neurons grouped near their eyes, they are still enthusiastic learners, according to BBC. As per BBC's websites, a 2023 study found that these brainless creatures are capable of associative learning. In this instance, they managed to learn how to steer clear of objects during a laboratory experiment, rapidly modifying their behavior in response to new information. Beadlet anemone Beadlet Anemone are commonly found in rock pools across the word. This ruby-red and tentacled sea creature is brainless. A research project conducted at the University of Nottingham found out that their behavioral adaptability, specifically how their actions can shift in reaction to various stimuli and discovered that they can modify their aggression levels towards other anemones depending on how familiar or related they are. Brittle stars Brittle stars are closely related to starfish. According to BBC, they are brainless creatures having only a nerve ring and nerve cords in their five arms. There is no central processing centre, and each of the nerve cords can act independently of each other. Sea squirt Sea squirts are simple creatures who live their lives fixed to a rock. According to BBC, they consume food by taking in water in one end, taking it out from the other side thus traps tiny food particles. Slime moulds Slime moulds are neither fungus, animals or plant. These are single-celled gelatinous creatures who have the ability to solve mazes, remember foraging routes, make decisions and anticipate change while being brainless, according to BBC. Green sea urchin Sea urchins are simple creatures who show some remarkable behaviours. For instance, this prevalent type of urchin is recognized for its behavior of gathering loose items from the ocean bottom such as shells, stones, seagrass, and even plastic and using them as a form of protection.
Telegraph
16-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Sorry Cate Blanchett, but artists should never ‘retire'
In one of several parallel fantasy lives that I live, I have retired. I am 'dividing my time' between London and Southern France (probably Languedoc-Roussillon), with January spent on an island off the coast of Colombia. But I won't have made a fuss about my retreat from the rat race: no grand speeches, no pitying donations on and certainly no leaving drinks. I will have made a French exit. Cate Blanchett, however, has made public the fact that she wants to retire from acting and do other things. The 55-year-old actress is actually making her radio drama debut on the BBC this coming Saturday, but no matter, she told Radio Times that she was serious about leaving a profession at which she has excelled. 'Yeah, right,' I thought, as Blanchett contemplated a Saga holiday to Madeira. Actors are always announcing their retirements, and they rarely mean it. Cameron Diaz 'formally confirmed' she was quitting the biz they call show in 2018, only to return in the execrable – though appropriately named – thriller Back in Action. Daniel Day-Lewis has retired at least twice; the last time was in 2017 after he appeared in the film Phantom Thread, for which he received an Oscar nomination. A representative announced the fact through a slightly pallid statement which expressed 'immense gratitude to all his contributors and audiences over the years'. Surprise, surprise, Day-Lewis is back, in a film called Anemone which will be directed by his son, Ronan. If I had bought Day-Lewis countless beers at his Be At One leaving do, I'd want my money back. Why do they do it? If I was a cynic, I would say it is because, as an actor, you are constantly seeking validation. It is as if you are expecting people to say: 'Oh, please don't, you are an inspiration. You still have so much to give.' Yet if you really have that much of an ego, it's better to be like Greta Garbo, who announced her temporary retirement at the age of 36 and never came back. Her life became shrouded in an almost ghoulish mystique, and her status as a cultural icon was assured. I can understand going back on your word for financial reasons: after all, the state pension is not going to buy you many nights in the Priory. But money rarely seems to be the motivation. Perhaps we should be sympathetic to the idea that people renege on their retirement simply because they love what they do. I certainly get that impression with older musicians: in the past, Tina Turner, Mötley Crüe and David Bowie all officially stepped out of the spotlight only to return. However, when Turner said she was going to give it all up in her early 60s, she stated: 'I should really hang up my dancing shoes'. This inadvertently highlighted two things – that women in a sexist industry are expected to retire – and that carrying on well past your prime (particularly when you are a rock god) can look a little tragic. Do we really want to see Granddad throw himself around the stage, ever fearful that he's going to dislocate something? Otherwise, artists can carry on ad nauseam. Writers usually do, though their best work is often behind them (Diana Athill and Hilma Wolitzer are exceptions). A poignant example of a public withdrawal was the Nobel-winning South African writer Nadine Gordimer who quit, at 90, saying she was too disillusioned to continue. She died shortly afterwards. Women, on the whole, tend to do these things with more grace than men – think of the classical music world which is well known for perpetuating the careers of ageing maestros even when they are well past their prime. Yet sometimes, a Bernard Haitink or a Herbert Blomstedt continues, or so I imagine, because they have a compulsive attitude towards creativity. It's the same with the painter Frank Auerbach who died last year and met our chief art critic, Alastair Sooke, in his studio where, at the age of 91, he was still working every day: 'I've always painted as if I was going to die tomorrow,' he said. The German-Jewish Auerbach endured a horrendous early life, and it is not hard to see that he painted daily in the face of life's transience. Most artists and celebrities continue because they can, but there are a handful, like Auerbach, who continue because they must. A few days before Cate Blanchett announced her retirement, a lesser-known actress did the same. Courtney Henggeler, one of the cast of Netflix's Cobra Kai (a sequel of sorts to The Karate Kid), stated on publishing platform Substack that: 'After 20 plus years of fighting the good fight in the acting business, I hung up my gloves on Friday.' Unlike the garlanded Blanchett, Henggeler had had to endure countless knock-backs and had had enough of a rackety life that promised much and delivered little. 'The hustle, the grind, sprinkled occasionally with the odd acting job. Perhaps a line or two to TV's Dr. House – 'Sorry' (that's it. That was my line. Genius),' she wrote. While I feel that celebrity retirements are often disingenuous, I found this one very moving. Henggeler's statement was not akin to a grand dame taking a final bow, but the honest ranting of a jobbing actor. It's all very well Blanchett et al retiring in a public fashion, but isn't it a bit insensitive? A lot of people in this country, particularly those of us born after the 1960s, are beginning to realise that retirement is almost a pipe dream. Any such proclamation thus seems to confirm what we already knew: that celebrities are out of touch.
