BoxOfficeFangrl

No? Just that many movies from the same era feature cringeworthy and offensive racial (and gender) portrayals, but GWTW is infinitely more popular so it will have a bigger target on its back. You can't get outraged over things you don't know about. It was just interesting with Jezebel because TCM showed it this month, after the whole GWTW/HBOMax controversy, and it's all in the same Warner family, the hosts are all doing their intros/outros via Zoom. So inserting a warning or whatever wouldn't have been that hard. If it was on Tubi I wouldn't expect anything like that.

I watched Jezebel within the last two weeks. WB made it to cash in on the Scarlett Fever of the time, and its depictions of slavery might be even worse than GWTW's in some ways, but there was no warning about "context" on TCM. It’s in black and white, it won some Oscars but nothing earth-shattering, and it's not held up as one of the greatest movies of all time, so no one cares if it's problematic or not.

I wonder whose job it is at WB to report back about JKR's Twitter rants. Tonight she's sounding very Trumpian albeit with a better vocabulary, all "everyone agrees with me!" Yeah, after her assistant who wants to keep their job filtered out all the negative emails, I'm sure she got tons of supportive messages... Anyway, I agree that the spinoff franchise should have been about Dumbledore from the start if that's what they wanted to do. I didn't get basing it on maybe Fantastic Beasts at all or making the main character Newt Scamander but not really. The series lacks focus for something created as a movie.

I really liked this movie and all, but what?! But we're not overrun with musicals about the space program, so it's a new lane, I guess...

"I'm not like a regular mom, I'm a cool mom..."

Read the whole thread/replies: Basically the rule against filmed stage shows being Oscsr eligible is only specific to documentaries. AMPAS has never restricted such works from consideration in other categories, as evidenced by the Academy's own collections of eligible movies/performers for past years (even if they didn't get nominated, ultimately). I am always here for Oscar drama and a Hamilton eligibility debate would really liven up a pretty thin awards season...

I read this article twice, I thought I had missed something but I see I'm not the only who didn't find it thorough. No, Hamilton can't compete as a doc, but was that really what people were asking?

Since seeing the musical live, I have had doubts about it working as a movie in real world settings. It thrives in the stage environment but it's always a question with musical adaptation, if non-fans can roll with the unreality in same way. Who knows how hard Disney would campaign Hamilton this season? But it may not need much of that, and as unorthodox as a filmed stage show would be as an contender here, I can picture Oscar voters still being more comfortable with that winning vs. an animated movie. We'll know it's a threat when the hitpieces about its accuracy start getting recycled on the awards sites.

How wild would it be if Disney finally gets their Best Picture Oscar because of Hamilton, a decidedly political work that had to be (slightly) censored just to avoid an R rating? If the first streaming service to win Best Picture isn't Netflix? A Best Actor nomination from a filmed play has happened before, so there's precedent. Hamilton was scheduled to be released in movie theaters but not until 2021. So far, AMPAS has only granted an exception to movies that were scheduled for theaters this year but got their releases canceled. It might end up not even being eligible for Oscars, but if it is... In a year with a full slate, I doubt Hamilton would have a chance...but it's not a normal year. And celebrities already absolutely loved Hamilton, even before...

Sure, so long as it's not from Netflix...

Should make the Honest Oscar Ballots that much more colorful, lol...

Chase Rice? Lol, he was on The Bachelor this season for an episode where there was a concert. He wasn't even impressive in a free amusement park show, and that was before. I wonder how many women in that crowd are Bachelor fans. Anyway, I think a movie screening would be safer than a concert but I wouldn’t want to go to either right now. There are theaters open now and drive ins are overwhelming more popular at the moment.

No worries, right now Sasha Stone seems to be offering up some sort of "It’s ephebophile, actually," defense on Twitter, always a winning argument when the subject is predatory behavior towards teenagers. Not everyone who has allegations gets cancelled for good but selling this while sidestepping Ansel's presence is going to be difficult.

KStew as Diana?! I mean, never say never in life, but she seems all wrong for this. Not so much the appearance, which can be altered with makeup (and stilts, I guess), but the charisma, the energy are really different with the two women. Was Elizabeth Debicki busy? Here's hoping this will be better than the Naomi Watts version at least...

Maybe Viggo and Mahershala would have canceled each other out? Two nominees in Lead for the same movie hasn't happened in decades. They liked Green Book a lot but you can win Best Picture without acting nominations.

Yes, Mahershala Ali had more than 50 percent screentime in Green Book, but Viggo had even more screentime than him. Here is a great resource for awards junkies who care about these things: Screen Time Central Specifically the breakdowns for Best Actor and Supporting Actor that year went like this: 91st Academy Awards - 2018 [Lead] Christian Bale (Vice) - 1:06:27 / 50.21% Willem Dafoe (At Eternity's Gate) - 1:13:02 / 65.69% Viggo Mortensen (Green Book) - 1:30:44 / 69.82% Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody) - 1:31:58 / 68.39% Bradley Cooper (A Star Is Born) - 1:35:13 / 70.22% 91st Academy Awards - 2018 [Supporting] Sam Elliott (A Star Is Born) - 8:45 / 6.45% Sam Rockwell (Vice) - 9:51 / 7.44% Richard E. Grant (Can You Ever Forgive Me?) - 31:04 / 29.24% Adam Driver (BlacKkKlansman) - 38:16 / 28.41% Mahershala Ali (Green Book) -1:06:38 / 51.28% When co-leads go Supporting, it's often to avoid internal competition or competing against themselves in another movie, but neither is a factor for Lindo. They could try the ensemble argument, but the case for him as a lead is strong enough.

The timeframe for next season would likely change. Even when the Oscars didn't cover a calendar year at first, the eligibility periods didn't overlap.

Every time I read someone saying "the Oscars aren't about quality nowadays", I wonder how much Oscar and Hollywood history they even know. These awards have ALWAYS been an exercise in flattering egos, making up for previous slights (well, not the first year, but Bette Davis received what was widely considered a make-good Oscar, way back in 1936), and concerned with rewarding the "right" kind of movie as Best Picture. This Oscar year will last longer than 12 months, the first time that's happened since the 6th Oscars, which covered 17 months in 1932-1933. The Best Picture winner for that timeframe, Cavalcade, frequently makes "Worst Best Picture Ever" lists. Were all the other nominees even more terrible, making it the least bad of the bunch? Of course not. Many doing a rewatch now (or even 20 years ago) would rank Cavalcade very low among the ten nominees that year. But Cavalcade was a huge hit, and was the sort of historical saga that was catnip to 1930s Oscars voters. The Oscar patterns that people decry as either recent developments or products of Harvey Weinstein supposedly introducing campaigning into awards season...the bones of these things started much longer ago than that. The "popular vs artistic" concept surrounding Best Picture happened at the very first Academy Awards, when they rewarded both ideas before saying, "Never mind!" the next year. But I actually don't disagree with the premise that AMPAS could just reward whatever manages to be released by the end of the year. Maybe they are worried about the lag time (the reason why the Oscars stopped being held in late March/early April to begin with), or they don’t trust what their voters would pick in such a circumstance. Sticking with a calendar year would've been all good until Best Picture had gone to...IDK, The Call of the Wild or something.

More individual theater info: Things can change in a month, but right now only the drive-ins seem to be doing well.

Of course WB wouldn't cancel Fantastic Beasts movies only because of JKR's thoughts on transgender issues. WB would move on from Fantastic Beasts if they felt there was no saving the downward trajectory of an expensive franchise (especially when no one knows how movie attendance will be for the next year or two), or wanted to dump JKR as a screenwriter because many of the issues that fans have had with the movies so far have come down to the scripts. It's not like FB3 wasn't having issues and holdups even before this latest controversy, and Covid...

Would much rather see a movie about all the Evan Hansen actors dating each other in real life...

Is Peter Jackson just making documentaries from now on?

But there were always critically acclaimed movies released throughout the year and later available on streaming? Not on the Academy's website but other popular services like Netflix/Prime/Hulu and VOD. The culprit in getting the same boring nominees is a laziness in thought, of having a narrow sense of what is worthy of being awarded. I hope all these initiatives work out and change how people think, but I am skeptical....