Tag: Entertainment-Variety

SPOILER ALERT: This story contains spoilers from Season 1 of “Big Mistakes,” now streaming on Netflix.

Dan Levy knows exactly what keeps him up at night, as the possibility of being blackmailed into committing crimes has haunted him for years. So naturally, he made a TV show about it.

Six years after “Schitt’s Creek” wrapped, Levy has returned to television with “Big Mistakes,” a darkly comic crime thriller he co-created with Rachel Sennott. The show follows Nicky (Levy) and Morgan Dardano (Taylor Ortega), a pastor-and-teacher sibling duo from New Jersey who stumble into organized crime after Morgan steals a necklace from a postal store to bury with their dying grandmother. What follows is a season-long descent into grave robbing, drug running and enough accessory-to-murder charges to keep the Dardano family lawyer very busy. However, the deeper they sink, the better they get. “The worse they were, the better they got at their jobs,” Levy tells Variety. “And the more they were needed.”

The chaos is matched only by the cast assembled to deliver it. Laurie Metcalf plays Linda, the siblings’ mother and accidental mayoral candidate, whose parallel bid for local office manages to feel just as high-stakes as the organized crime subplot. Abby Quinn rounds out the family as Natalie, the well-behaved sister who got the good genes — and Elizabeth Perkins delivers a season-ending shocker as Annette, whose reveal as the crime boss orchestrating everything is the kind of twist that sends viewers immediately back to Episode 1 to uncover what they missed.

Levy spoke with Variety about building his follow-up to “Schitt’s Creek,” the very pre-planned criminal path ahead and what a potential second season might look like for two siblings who are now, definitively, in too deep.

You’ve spoken about taking a real break after “Schitt’s Creek” before developing this. What was the creative kernel that got you moving?

You really have to sit with the question of what excites you. We were lucky enough to get 80 episodes of “Schitt’s Creek,” and I knew how much I loved working on it — I wanted that same love for whatever I did next. I never go into something assuming it’s just going to be one season, so I needed to find an idea that would excite me enough to keep telling the story. I just kept thinking about being blackmailed into crime. It scares the shit out of me; I would not do well if I ever found myself in that situation. And at its core, a random person finding themselves blackmailed into crime is just endlessly entertaining. I wanted a buddy comedy, a brother-sister dynamic, a whole new family story — and I knew I wanted a female perspective on Morgan. I called up Rachel Sennott, who I just assumed would also not fare very well in the face of organized crime. She said yes, we spent six, eight months figuring out the show, brought it into Netflix, and they loved it. And that was it.

You’re clearly a fan of Rachel Sennott’s. Any chance we’d ever see you on her show “I Love L.A.”?

I don’t even know what I would play on that show.

Anything — anything would be believable. 

If she ever wants to write me in, just say the word. I’ll do it.

Why was the family dynamic so important to carry over from “Schitt’s Creek”?

I just think family dynamics are the funniest. Families in times of insane crisis — that can be the funniest times. I’m often laughing in times of insane crisis, so I’m endlessly fascinated by it. I think it’s also just a really excellent way of revealing character. So I knew I wanted to make another family show. And that’s also why I wanted to involve Rachel, because I love her comedy, I admire her comedy, but it’s a little bit different than mine. Our voices overlap, but they’re also very different. So I wanted to really push the possibility of what the tone of this show could be. Between the two of us, we found this really nice place of chaos and comedy and suspense. I do think there has to be some comedic thread to the way that I write. I just love dialogue.

The show balances the crime world against something as comparatively mundane as a local mayoral race — and somehow both feel equally high-stakes. How did you connect that?

This is a family that has inherited anxiety from their mother’s mother. You see Nona pass away in the first episode — that’s sort of where it all stemmed from. She was nuts, and it’s all trickled down through the family tree. A lot of this show is an examination of what we inherit from our family, from our parents, from their parents. We are a byproduct of our family tree. So anxiety runs rampant in this family. Not handling stress runs rampant in this family. Linda running for mayor, and Natalie helping her — that is the be-all, end-all for them. There is nothing more important, and the stakes are high. And I just found there to be a lot of comedy in that as well. The more seriously people take things, the funnier it is.

Nicky and Morgan keep failing upward — the worse they are, the more indispensable they become. Was that dynamic intentional?

As much as they wanted to get out, it’s like an undertow. The more you swim towards shore, the more you’re pulled out. The worse they were, the better they got at their jobs, and the more they were needed. And then by the end, they are fully in.

You mentioned you already know how the entire series ends. How mapped out is this world?

There is a very pre-planned criminal path that has already been laid out. We just need the opportunity to get there.

You’ve talked about circumstance shaping character — how does the crime world change Nicky and Morgan specifically?

I love the idea that circumstance makes people better. On “Schitt’s Creek,” moving to a small town made that family a better family. In the same way, I hope that parts of this world will make Morgan and Nicky more fully realized versions of themselves. For Morgan, she’s always been a rebellious person. She’s always wanted the spotlight, always wanted attention — and I think she’s getting it in this world. There’s a part of her that really enjoys it and gets thrills out of it. For Nicky, he’s not there yet. But my hope is that at some point it’ll force him out of his shell a little more, give him more confidence, make him feel a little more accomplished.

The season-ending reveal — Annette as the crime boss — is a big swing. When did you and Rachel decide that was where the story was going?

Rachel and I knew from the start of developing this season.

I didn’t see that coming. Were there signs that I missed?

I think if you were to go back and watch knowing how it ends, there are signs. Annette is a very savvy businesswoman, and when you operate in organized crime, you need to get your fingers in a lot of political pots. As soon as the tide turned on the election, she knew exactly who was going to be at the forefront of that race, and that’s when certain things shifted and she came on board. My hope is always that if someone chose to rewatch, there would be a lot there for them — we did weave in a lot of little hints. But I mean — your in-laws being a huge crime boss.

What does Season 2 for Morgan and Nicky look like then?

A Season 2 would just be: There’s no way out now.

That kind of negates my point that Nicky and Morgan kept succeeding due to their own charisma. In actuality they survive because Annette says so, and because of Morgan’s relationship to her son. Does Max know any of this?

She needs to keep him happy. Morgan and their dynamic, their relationship, is a great way of keeping her son happy. She can’t mess that up. And also — Nicky and Morgan know too much now. So even if they wanted to leave, they have a lot to answer for.

So Max has no idea.

[Levy shrugs]

This interview has been edited and condensed.

“The Christophers,” the story of a past-his-prime painter (Ian McKellen) and the mysterious assistant (Michaela Coel) he hires to destroy some priceless works of his half-finished art, defies easy categorization. It’s funny and sad, veering between a crime thriller and a character drama, as it examines the precarious nature of talent. Why, it asks, do some artists lose their creative spark?

“We didn’t really think about genre,” says Steven Soderbergh, the film’s director. “Human behavior was our compass. Our characters’ evolution as people determined the film’s trajectory.”

Soderbergh is scrunched next to Ed Solomon, the writer of “The Christophers,” at a comically small desk at the Warren Street Hotel in Manhattan. The two have worked together previously on the noir thriller “No Sudden Move” and the twisty mysteries “Mosaic” and “Full Circle.” It’s the day before “The Christophers,” their latest collaboration, opens in limited release on April 10, and the men are finishing off the promotional rounds for the low-budget indie.

It’s a press tour that courted controversy after Soderbergh, one of the most candid and thoughtful A-list directors in Hollywood, was open about using AI on an upcoming documentary about John Lennon and talked about its creative possibilities. His remarks sparked a torrent of criticism on social media, where some commentators faulted him for embracing technology that could kill jobs in the entertainment industry.

But Soderbergh is never one to shy away from a debate. In our discussion, he doubled down on his views about AI’s potential, while also talking about his working relationship with Solomon, the artistic anxieties that “The Christophers” explores and the “Star Wars” project he was forced to abandon.

Who came up with the idea for “The Christophers”?

Steven Soderbergh: It started with a one-sentence pitch to Ed over drinks. Basically it was, there’s an older artist at the end of his career, and a young apprentice-type rolls up, and there’s something not on the level about her presence. In my mind, she was more of a Tom Ripley character. Ed immediately started filling that idea out. He was like: “What if there are children? What if there’s some issue about the value of the estate?” Over time he shoved these deeper themes of mentorship, insecurity and ego into it. It really became about asking the question, what is a legacy?

Ed Solomon: I hadn’t even planned to write something. It emerged after I asked, what are you thinking about? And then we just started throwing stuff around. I drew on the emotional relationships I’d had with quite a few different artists — directors, writers, comedians — and how fame could turn into a prison for them. But sometimes there are things that enter from the subconscious. Like two weeks ago, I turned to Steven and said, “Oh my God, my mom’s a painter!” It’s funny how sometimes you don’t realize what you’re writing about.

Julian, the character that Ian McKellen plays, was a major painter who squandered his talent after becoming a reality show judge. Have you seen people who achieved at a very high level and then lost their creative way?

Soderbergh: That’s the terror for every creative person. I call it the slackening. It’s night sweat material for me. I’m very interested in the lives of artists. How can somebody maintain their output right up to the end? What is it about their personality that enabled them to keep their level high? And why does the opposite happen? What makes someone incapable of sustaining that quality? Nobody wants to be described as an artist whose stuff fell off. But also, how do you determine that? Sometimes critics are wrong. Sometimes your work showed up too soon, and you were ahead of the audience. I focus on what I can control, which is the method of making things. I set up circumstances and environments with trusted collaborators that allow for the alchemy that creates good stuff to take place. All I can do is bring the ingredients together in a pot. That’s the best chance you’ve got of making something that tastes good.

Last year, you released the spy thriller “Black Bag.” It had two big stars in Cate Blanchett and Michael Fassbender. Critics loved it, but it struggled at the box office. Did its commercial failure make you recalibrate anything about how you choose projects?

Soderbergh: Well, yeah. It made me realize I need to find material that I like and that has a shot of reaching a sizable audience. “The Christophers” is a very accessible movie, but it’s not going to turn into “Weapons,” right? But going forward, I want to find something that has scale, because it’s been a while since I’ve made a movie of real size, and has a hook that gets people to go to the theaters in big numbers. I want to find something that I can event-ize, that I also love.

Ed, your previous collaborations with Steven, like “No Sudden Move” and “Full Circle,” were intricately plotted. “The Christophers” feels more like a chamber piece where two razor-sharp characters circle each other, often jousting verbally. Do you find it easier to work out the plot of the film or to write the dialogue?

Solomon: When it works best, everything is intertwined and coming together at the same time. What I’m interested in is finding truthful moments that are surprising. To do that, I have to constantly go back to the question, what would actually happen here, and what would this character say or do that feels truthful and not stock? That requires getting into the emotional space of a person. Once I feel what they’re feeling, I know where they need to go. When I get too plot-oriented, characters start to become little more than chess pieces you’re moving around. That’s a problem with how they teach screenwriting. More and more, they teach it as a structural event. Now, there is an inherent structure in movies. You need a beginning, a middle and an end. But the more time I spend doing this, the more I go back to the most basic questions, why is this person here? What do they want? And what’s the truth of the situation?

Ian McKellen is so wonderful in this film — he’s vibrant and larger-than-life, but also vulnerable and insecure. He had a terrible accident in 2024 and injured himself falling off the stage. Do you think that experience influenced his performance?

Soderbergh: I didn’t see any lingering physical manifestation from the fall. But it’s a type of event that anybody would be affected by. There’s a sense of precarity that it must conjure up.

Solomon: Before we started filming, there was this moment when Ian said, “I don’t know what I would do if I weren’t acting.” We were talking about how meaning and purpose get funneled through a creative person’s work. He didn’t say anything explicitly about the fall, but he did admit how scared he would be if he couldn’t perform any longer. I’m guessing that an accident like that puts everything in stark relief and that the feelings he was having were, in some way, related to the character of Julian. They both were asking, “Who am I if I don’t have my art?”

Steven, what made you think of Michaela Coel for this film?

Soderbergh: I was just blown away by her show, “I May Destroy You.” It was an entirely new thing. She’s a thoroughbred. She’s got all the tools. It’s kind of ridiculous how talented she is.

I’ve seen the movie twice. The first time, Julian’s children (James Corden, Jessica Gunning) seemed like miserable, greedy wretches. The second time, I felt a lot of sympathy for them. They obviously had no love growing up.

Soderbergh: In the film, Julian glibly dismisses their upbringing. It is indicative of what they experienced. As a child, you’re wired to seek the approval of your parents and at no stage of their lives were they given any approbation or affection from him. And that corrodes you. They’re feral because nobody taught them to be different.

Solomon: My heart breaks for them in a strange way. At the same time, we didn’t want to do the typical, let’s resolve that relationship thing, because we also wanted it to stay honest. We wanted the changes these characters experience to be internal, and not overt and tectonic.

Soderbergh: The same thing is true with Julian. He hasn’t changed much by the end of the film. He’s only come to a place where his behavior has changed around Michaela’s character. He can be with her in a way that he isn’t with other people, and probably never has been. That’s as far as he’s able to go. He’s still a jerk.

Steven, congratulations on getting into Cannes with your documentary “John Lennon: The Last Interview.” Your recent comments about using AI on the film have been heavily criticized. What do you make of the debate?

Soderbergh: [Pauses] This is mystifying to me.

Are you unaware of the blowback?

Soderbergh: No, I’m aware. I found out from people looking at me like they’d seen my chest X-ray. I was like, “What’s up?” And they’re like, “These AI comments!” And they read me back what I had said, and I honestly felt, “Where’s the smoke here?”

You used AI on that film and said you are going to use it on an upcoming film about the Spanish-American War. Clearly, you see it as a useful tool?

Soderbergh: I’m just not threatened by it. I’m only scared of things I don’t understand. So I felt obligated to engage with it, to figure out what it is and what it can do. It turned out to be a very good tool for certain passages of the Lennon documentary where I needed surrealistic imagery that was impossible to shoot. It allowed me to solve a creative problem about how to visualize what John and Yoko are speaking about philosophically. Ten years ago, I would have needed to engage a visual effects house at an unbelievable cost to come up with this stuff. No longer. My job is to deliver a good movie, period. And this tool showed up at a moment when I needed it. I don’t think it’s the solution to everything, and I don’t think it’s the death of everything. We’re in the very early stages. Five years from now, we all may be going, “That was a fun phase.” We may end up not using it as much as we thought we were going to. There are some people that I have absolute love and respect for that refuse to engage with it. That’s their privilege. But I’m not built that way. You show me a new tool. I want to get my hands on it and see what’s going on.

Ed, as a writer, what do you think of AI?

Solomon: I’m not interested in using it as a writing tool because it takes away from what I love about what I do, which is the process. It makes it result-oriented. I’m not scared of it. I just don’t see myself using it in any kind of a significant creative way.

Steven, your “Star Wars” film, “The Hunt for Ben Solo,” got cancelled. What did you learn from the process of trying to get that movie made?

Soderbergh: That there’s no such thing as wasted creative time. It was great to work on that with Adam Driver and [writers] Rebecca Blunt and Scott Burns. Sometimes that’s just the way things go. I know what we came up with was good. I think it would have excited audiences. Working with smart people, trying to solve shit, is how you get better. Adam felt bad for having gotten me into it. I think he felt like he wasted my time, and I made it clear to him, “Dude, that was not wasted time.” It’s a problem solving experience that will get applied to everything I do going forward. I’m not upset. I feel positive about everything that we did together.

What movie would you recommend someone watch to get in the right frame of mind for “The Christophers”?

Soderbergh: Making this, I thought a lot about the great John Schlesinger. His film, “Sunday, Bloody Sunday,” is one of my favorites. It’s a great London film. And I was influenced by his treatment of the characters. They’re so complex and he has this willingness in his movies to allow all the various shades of people to be expressed. He never judges his characters, and that’s what we tried to do with “The Christophers.”

Coachella attendees who turned out to watch Katseye perform got a “Golden” treat when the singers behind Huntr/x — Ejae (Rumi), Audrey Nuna (Mira), and Rei Ami (Zoey) — made a surprise appearance.

Fresh off winning the Oscar for best original song, the “KPop Demon Hunters” stars joined Katseye (Daniela Avanzini, Lara Raj, Megan Skiendiel, Sophia Laforteza and Yoonchae Jeung) on the Sahara stage to perform “Golden.”

Katseye kicked off the festival’s opening night and are set to perform both weekends. Among the songs they performed were “Internet Girl,” “Pinky Up” and “Mean Girls.” The group climbed the ranks as K-pop trainees on the 2023 reality competition series “Dream Academy.” They became breakout performers following the Netflix docuseries “Popstar Academy: Katseye” along with their aptly-titled first single “Debut.” Earilier this year, they landed a Grammy nomination for best new artist. Their song “Gabriela” was nominated for best pop duo/group performance.

The group has released two EPs, 2024’s “SIS (Soft Is Strong)” and last year’s “Beautiful Chaos,” as well as a handful of singles. “Gnarly,” which was co-written by Alice Longyu Gao, became their first song to hit the Billboard Hot 100 last year. They followed with “Gabriela,” “Gameboy” and “Internet Girl,” the latter of which debuted at No. 29 on the charts.

Aside from the Oscar, “Golden” scooped up a string of awards including the Golden Globe and Critics Choice Award for best original song. It also won the Grammy Award for best song written for visual media.

“Golden” was written by EJAE, Mark Sonnenblick, IDO, 24 and Teddy Park, and became a massive hit since debuting on the Billboard Hot 100 in June 2025. It scored eight non-consecutive weeks atop that chart, becoming the longest-leading hit on the tally by an animated act.

Speaking with Variety about the song’s success, Ami described the feeling as “vindicating,” adding that there’s finally “validation. It’s long overdue,” she said. “We worked our asses off. We’ve had the door shut in our faces. We were told we were too little, too much.”

Sabrina Carpenter is Friday night’s headliner. Justin Bieber will take to the stage on Saturday night. He’s set to perform at 11:25 p.m. on the festival’s hump night. It’s expected that he will likely play the two “Swag” albums in their 25-song entirety, based on the warmup shows he has done at the Roxy and Troubadour.

Emmys…paging Dr. Abbot.

After winning the Primetime Emmy Award for guest actor in a drama series for his turn as Dr. Jack Abbot, Shawn Hatosy returns in Season 2 with expanded visibility, appearing in six of the show’s 15 episodes. In the 50-year history of guest acting races, repeat winners are rare, and repeat winners for the same show are even rarer. Only five actors in the guest drama actor category have ever won more than once: Patrick McGoohan for “Columbo” (1975, 1990), Ed Asner for “Rich Man, Poor Man” (1976) and “Roots” (1977), John Lithgow for “Amazing Stories” (1986) and “Dexter” (2010), Charles S. Dutton for “The Practice” (2002) and “Without a Trace” (2003), and Ron Cephas Jones for “This Is Us” (2018, 2020).

Notably, no performer has ever won back-to-back guest drama actor Emmys for the same role. It is a lane Hatosy could create entirely for himself.

That kind of streak has been achieved in other guest categories, most famously by Mel Brooks, who remains the only three-time consecutive winner for “Mad About You,” and Jay Thomas, who won back-to-back for “Murphy Brown.” On the drama side, Margo Martindale pulled it off for “The Americans,” while the guest comedy actress category has seen consecutive wins from Jean Smart for “Frasier” and Maya Rudolph for “Saturday Night Live.” Expanding the lens further underscores the rarity, with only a handful of performers winning multiple times for the same show in nonconsecutive years, including McGoohan for “Columbo,” Patricia Clarkson for “Six Feet Under,” Cephas Jones for “This Is Us,” Colleen Dewhurst for “Murphy Brown,” and Kathryn Joosten for “Desperate Housewives.”

The HBO Max medical drama broke out in a major way with its first season, winning five Emmys, including outstanding drama series, lead actor for Noah Wyle and supporting actress for Katherine LaNasa, alongside Hatosy’s guest victory. It enters this year’s race as the clear show to beat.

Hatosy’s work is central to that momentum. As Dr. Abbot, he delivers a grounded, lived-in performance that plays effectively opposite Wyle, anchoring the show’s high-stakes storytelling. His slightly expanded role in Season 2, along with stepping behind the camera to direct the episode “3:00 P.M.,” could even position him for a potential double nomination. With six episodes under his belt, including the upcoming season finale, he once again sits in the gray area between guest and supporting, a space that Emmy voters and Television Academy officials continue to debate.

Still, narrative matters. Repeat winners often benefit from a compelling story, whether it is overdue recognition or sustained excellence. Hatosy brings both, bolstered by his long collaboration with producer John Wells and standout roles on “Southland” and “Animal Kingdom.”

With “The Pitt” it gives a chance to redefine what a guest acting win looks like in today’s television landscape. Dr. Abbot might just make Emmy history when he comes off the night shift.

Coachella 2026 is underway, and for home viewers, so is Couch-ella. Most of the performances from weekend 1 will be streamed live on YouTube, across seven channels for seven stages — check out the full schedule of streams, below.

Although most sets will be seen live, some will be shown on a delayed basis, like Jack White’s 3 p.m. Saturday show, which won’t be viewable until the afternoon streams get underway at 4 p.m So for those tuning in at home, it pays to make sure you are checking the streaming schedule and not just the on-site lineup.

Once each day’s performances conclude, the seven channels will spend the overnight and early morning hours serving night owls by rebroadcasting the full lineup from top to bottom, starting at around midnight in most cases and going through breakfast time.

The three main stage headliners will, of course, be going out live from Indio: Sabrina Carpenter on Friday from 9:05-10:35 PT; Justin Bieber, getting a really late start Saturday at 11:25 p.m., with no announced end time; and Karol G on Sunday beginning at 9:55 p.m. On Friday, the main stage has what amounts to an additional post-headliner headliner, as electronic music artist Anyma goes on as the clock strikes midnight, an hour and a half after Carpenter has wrapped up.

Here is a full list of the streams scheduled for weekend 1, all in Pacific time, with embedded video links to take you right to the corresponding YouTube channels. While these lineups are separated by stage and channel, if you want to see how the sets overlap as you map out what to prioritize, scroll down for a grid that lists the steams side by side.

Main Stage Channel Schedule

Friday, April 10

5:30 – Teddy Swims
7:00 – The xx
9:05 – Sabrina Carpenter
12 a.m. – Anyma Presents ÆDEN

Saturday, April 11

5:30 – Addison Rae
7:00 – Giveon
9:00 – The Strokes
11:25 – Justin Bieber

Sunday, April 12

4:00 – Tijuana Panthers
4:45 – Wet Leg
6:10 – Major Lazer
7:50 – Young Thug
9:55 – Karol G

Outdoor Theatre Channel Schedule

Friday, April 10

4:00 – Dabeull
5:20 – Lykke Li
6:40 – Dijon
8:05 – Turnstile
10:35 – Disclosure
11:55 – Bonus Set from Do LaB

Saturday, April 11

4:00 – Los Hermanos Flores
5:10 – Alex G
6:10 – Blondshell
7:05 – Sombr
8:30 – Labrinth
10:20 – David Byrne

Sunday, April 12, 2026

4:00 – Gigi Perez
5:15 – Clipse
6:45 – Foster the People
8:40 – Laufey
10:30 – Bigbang

Sahara Channel Schedule

Friday, April 10

4:00 – Youna
4:50 – Hugel
6:15 – Marlon Hoffstadt
8:00 – Katseye
9:15 – Levity
10:50 – Swae Lee
12:05 a.m. – Sexyy Red

Saturday, April 11

4:00 – Zulan
5:00 – Hamdi
6:15 – ¥ØU$UK€ ¥UK1MAT$U
7:15 – TEED
8:00 – Nine Inch Noize
9:10 – Rezz
10:30 – Adriatique
11:55 – Worship

Sunday, April 12

4:00 – Girl Math (Vnssa x Nala)
5:05 – Bunt.
6:10 – Duke Dumont
7:25 – Mochakk
9:05 – Subtronics
10:45 – Kaskade

Mojave Channel Schedule

Friday, April 10

4:15 – Bini
5:30 – Central Cee
6:45 – Devo
8:10 – Moby
9:20 – Slayyyter
10:35 – Ethel Cain
11:55 – Blood Orange

Saturday, April 11

4:00 – Jack White
4:50 – Fujii Kaze
5:50 – Royel Otis
7:30 – Taemin
8:55 – PinkPantheress
10:15 – Interpol

Sunday, April 12

4:25 – Little Simz
5:35 – Suicidal Tendencies
6:30 – Samia
7:10 – Iggy Pop
8:45 – FKA Twigs

Gobi Channel Schedule

Friday, April 10

4:00 – Bob Baker Marionettes
4:45 – NewDad
5:30 – Joyce Manor
6:15 – CMAT
7:20 – Fakemink
8:25 – Holly Humberstone
9:50 – Joost
11:05 – Creepy Nuts

Saturday, April 11

4:05 – Whatmore
5:10 – Luísa Sonza
6:15 – Geese
7:05 – Noga Erez
7:50 – Davido
9:00 – BIA
10:10 – Morat

Sunday, April 12

4:05 – Cobrah
5:15 – Oklou
6:30 – Black Flag
7:10 – Flowerovlove
7:45 – Tomora
9:05 – The Rapture
10:00 – The Chats

Sonora Channel Schedule

Friday, April 10

4:00 – Wednesday
4:50 – Fleshwater
6:00 – The Two Lips
7:10 – Ninajirachi
8:25 – Cachirula & Loojan
9:15 – Febuary
10:00 – Hot Mulligan
10:55 – Carolina Durante
11:50 – Not for Radio

Saturday, April 11

4:20 – Ecca Vandal
5:30 – Ceremony
6:40 – Rusowsky
7:50 – 54 Ultra
8:45 – Die Spitz
9:45 – Mind Enterprises
10:45 – Freak Slug

Sunday, April 12

4:00 – Model/Actriz
4:45 – Jane Remover
5:30 – Los Retros
6:40 – RØZ
8:00 – Drain
9:10 – French Police
10:15 – Glitterer

Quasar Channel Schedule

Friday., April 10

5:00 – Tiga

7:00 – Deep Dish

9:00 – PAWSA 1

11:00 – Disco Lines

Saturday, April 11

5:00 – Joezi

7:00 – Afrojack x Shimza

Sunday, April 12

4:00 – Jazzy

6:00 – JOY (Anonymous)

8:00 – Fatboy Slim

And here are the livestreaming schedules on a day-by-day grid, for help in making those tough viewing choices:

“Maybe I could be at the bar, swilling a martini, saying nothing.”

So Louis Partridge told Variety just last year while discussing potential ways to impress Steven Knight at the premiere for “House of Guinness.”

At the time, Knight — who created the boozy Netflix show starring the fast-rising Brit as an Irish brewery heir — had just been unveiled as the writer of the 26th James Bond film, being directed by Denis Villeneuve. It represents Amazon MGM Studio’s major reboot of the spy franchise after the company acquired creative control from Eon. Partridge, like any actor with his eyes on arguably cinema’s most coveted role, was understandably eager to show off his finest 007 moves.

Six months on and, whatever Partridge — also known for “Enola Holmes,” “Disclaimer,” Netflix’s upcoming “Pride & Prejudice” and a recent relationship with Olivia Rodrigo — did at the bar in front of Knight, rumors would suggest it paid off. Speculation has now reached Variety that he’s in contention for the job (and beyond simply being put on a bookmaker’s list)

Of course, as with almost anything regarding Hollywood’s most famous superspy that’s not come directly out of the mouths of its key creative team, it’s important to note that this is no more than speculation. Attempts to confirm with Partridge’s reps or Amazon MGM Studios have been as predictably futile as any Bond villain’s wildly-complicated plans for global domination.

The Partridge rumor does, however, align with widespread chatter that the incoming 007 will be much younger than previous Bonds. Following a (speculative, of course) report in Deadline earlier this year, the word “fresh-faced” has done the rounds, and many in the industry Variety has spoken to seem to be sure the age is being dialed down a few notches.

But just how fresh-faced are they going for? At 23-years-old, Partridge’s face is considerably fresher than that of every other name on the ever-evolving conveyor belt of likely candidates (a list currently led by Callum Turner, Jacob Elordi, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Harris Dickinson). As many might note, he’s barely old enough to have developed a fussy preference over how his cocktails are mixed, let alone legally drink one.

Elordi, thought to have been a keen target for Amazon for some time, would already have been the youngest Bond at 28 years old. By contrast, Sean Connery was 32 when he started his tenure, Daniel Craig was 38, Pierce Brosnan was 42 and Roger Moore was 45 (and 57 when he signed off). Half a decade younger than Elordi, Partridge would throw the average down considerably more.

Turner — who recently shot to the bookies’ favorites following, yes, rumors — is 36, a good 13 years older. If the Bond team are considering someone as young as Partridge, is anyone in their mid-to-late 30s, or even in their 30s, off the menu? As one producer tells Variety: “Writing a film to be led by a 23-year-old is completely different to writing one for a 36-year-old — they’re just totally different.”

But an actor of Partridge’s age would offer producers some solid franchise longevity. Were he to do five to six Bond films over the next 15 or so years, he’d still be under 40 by the time he handed in his Walther PPK. With his star power still yet to hit A-list levels, he’d also be considerably less expensive than an Elordi or Taylor-Johnson.

If 23 is the rough age being considered, of known names, away from Partridge there’s a relatively small pool of British talent available (and reports earlier this year suggested Bond would be British). “Heartstopper” breakouts Kit Conner (22) and Joe Locke (23) would fit, as would Noah Jupe (21), riding a current wave thanks to the Oscar-winning “Hamnet” and the buzzy “Romeo and Juliet” West End stage production. But, unless they’re going for someone more unknown (a distinct possibility), that’s about it.

Again, this is mostly informed conjecture and nothing more than that. Never has there been a cinematic topic so fueled by speculation than who will next step into Craig’s blood-splattered 007 brogues (just ask Idris Elba, who has been batting off rumors for what feels like a lifetime).

And who started this particular bit of speculation? Could it have been someone in Partridge’s team or family? Riz Ahmed’s new semi-autobiographical satirical series “Bait” for Amazon that sees him play a struggling actor who seeks to boost his own Bond chances by ensuring he’s snapped by paparazzi leaving a (lousy) audition. Anything is possible.

Just to underline the how little we truly know about this, another name recently resurfaced in conversations as someone being “considered.” This time, it was 40-year-old James Norton.