Have you watched any movies recently you want to discuss? Any films you want to recommend or are hyped about? Feel free to discuss anything here.

Please just try to provide fair warning of spoilers if you can.

Picture: One Battle After Another

This became a tight race with Sinners late in the game. The obvious parallel here is 1917 and Parasite. 1917 won PGA, DGA, and BAFTA just like OBAA did. Parasite won SAG Ensemble and went on to win Picture from there.

I’m betting on OBAA being stronger than 1917. Notably 1917 was never in contention to win a Screenplay or an Acting award the way OBAA is. And OBAA is nominated in Film Editing and the front-runner in that category which 1917 missed.

I have correctly predicted every Picture winner since The Shape of Water but this is the first year where I’m in danger of losing that streak.

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson - One Battle After Another

Whether Sinners ends up winning Picture, I think this goes to PTA regardless.

Original Screenplay: Sinners

Adapted Screenplay: One Battle After Another

Lead Actor: Michael B. Jordan - Sinners

After Chalamet shot himself in the foot with his unorthodox press run for Marty Supreme, Jordan is the only one in the category going in with an industry award as the BAFTA awarded a British actor.

I think Chalamet really fucked up his chances to win for a while and will now win well into his 40s or even into his 50s. He should have played it better.

Lead Actress: Jessie Buckley - Hamnet

Supporting Actress: Amy Madigan - Weapons

After winning SAG it seems like it’s heading that way. Mosaku won the BAFTA but she had a homefield advantage. This is also an opportunity to award a veteran actress who never got her due, and will be supported by young people who enjoyed Weapons.

Supporting Actor: Sean Penn - One Battle After Another

Despite not campaigning and not appearing at the majority of the award shows (or perhaps because of that) Penn ended up winning both the SAG and BAFTA. Essentially sleepwalking to his third Oscar.

Original Score: Sinners

Original Song: Golden from KPop Demon Hunters

Sound: F1

Casting: Sinners

Production Design: Frankenstein

Cinematography: One Battle After Another

Sinners was originally the front-runner and would have made history as the first female cinematographer to win. However it lost both the ASC and BAFTA for Cinematography.

Makeup and Hairstyling: Frankenstein

Costume Design: Frankenstein

Film Editing: One Battle After Another

Sinners won the ACE Drama awards and OBAA won the ACE Comedy award. This category used to be correlated with Sound but since the sound categories were merged it has now correlated with Picture.

VFX: Avatar: Fire and Ash

Animated Feature: KPop Demon Hunters

Documentary Feature: The Perfect Neighbor

International Feature: Sentimental Value

Have you watched any movies recently you want to discuss? Any films you want to recommend or are hyped about? Feel free to discuss anything here.

Please just try to provide fair warning of spoilers if you can.

Have you watched any movies recently you want to discuss? Any films you want to recommend or are hyped about? Feel free to discuss anything here.

Please just try to provide fair warning of spoilers if you can.

Studios these days tend to make a lot of movies reusing existing IPs because that's what they know will sell.

You have the "new entry in a long running franchise" kinda IP utilizing movies, like say Alien Romulus or the latest MCU film.

Then you have the "legacy sequel" and "remake", when there might have been only 1-3 original movies, and they bring it back 15+ years later. These are often called "cash grabs", "disrespectful to the original", "unaware of what made the first one good", or something similar. Other times, though, they can be genuinely good, if not better than the first one in some ways.

The Naked Gun (2025) is the one that inspired this post. I went in without any expectations, and I thought it was a great time. They had some really good jokes about life in the 2020s (such as Tesla door handles being death traps, for example) that I thought were delivered very well. Also, since the genre of parody movies in the style of The Naked Gun or Airplane essentially died off, having a new one felt actually necessary unlike many phoned-in legacy sequels.

Another example that comes to mind is Blade Runner 2049. Before it came out, the idea of a Blade Runner 2 was so ridiculous, I believe it was a throwaway South Park gag. People assumed that if it ever came out, it'd be a cash grab. But it ended up being so good, I've heard people argue in places like Tildes that it's better than the original.

The third example I can think of is Top Gun: Maverick. Ever since it's release I've see a lot of people online sing its praises whenever it's come up. In fact, there is a night-and-day difference in the Rotten Tomatoes score for the two films, with the original having a 59% and the legacy sequel having a 96%.

Can you think of any other legacy sequels or remakes that hold a candle to the original film(s), or surpass them? Bonus points if it's one nobody expected to be good until it released.

Have you watched any movies recently you want to discuss? Any films you want to recommend or are hyped about? Feel free to discuss anything here.

Please just try to provide fair warning of spoilers if you can.

I've been on an interesting train of thought these past few days. I came across some criticism of a random old movie and I started thinking that the reason why I actually hate most modern movies is because they are all cowardly avoiding having any possible political interpretation for anything that happens in them. I've experienced movies that when the big fight scene starts, I'm falling asleep because I'm just so negatively invested in the characters or what will happen to them. That made me think about why so many boring, bland movies and shows keep being made, and it made me think of an opinion that the biggest reason why studios keep betting on blockbusters that are as boring as possible is that they are dependent on theatrical box office takings because streaming killed post-release revenue streams such as movie purchases.

I think that the reason for this is at least partially a symptom of the death of desire for physical media itself. Why deal with the inconvenience of physical media when you can just press a button and the movie starts playing? But at the same time I don't think this is entirely the fault of streaming services, but the fault of movie companies attempting to exert too much control over how people access their films.

I won't bore you with explanations of the limitations of streaming services. We've all been there, surely. They don't have what we want, the stuff we do want to see is spread out on a hundred different subscriptions, yada yada yada. So why do we not deal with them piecemeal? That answer comes with good news and bad news. Good news: you can! You can both buy and rent most movies that have ever been made. Bad news: it's an absolutely terrible deal if you do.

Right now there's at least three major services that allow you to buy digital movies: YouTube, Apple TV / iTunes Movies, and Prime Video. There's also the vestiges of the industry's "digital movies" initiative called Fandango at Home, previously Vudu - the one where you'd use a code you got with a DVD that said it included a digital copy. The problem with all of these services is obvious: if you buy a movie from them, you don't actually own it. They can and will take away access from you at any time for any reason they see fit.

There's an obvious solution to this: rental. It doesn't matter if they de-list a rental because you never had the illusion of ownership to begin with. But that has it's own problem: it's way too fucking expensive.

To put things into perspective, Blockbuster, before it closed down, would let you rent new releases for between $3-5 for a 1-2 day rental, while older movies could be between $1-3. Granted, this was before a lot of inflation, but those rentals also had the costs of running a store in expensive commercial real estate as well as the people who had to manage it, the cost of purchasing the media - sometimes at retail prices - and the cost of maintaining them (rewinding cassettes, cleaning and resurfacing discs, and replacing worn media).

Lets compare the cost of renting on Prime Video today.

Dicks the Musical is a somewhat niche movie unavailable to watch on streaming sites that came out more than two years ago, and the current price to rent it is $4.99. Five bucks. I should mention this is for a movie that I already watched on Hoopla via my library card for free.

Batman Returns is a blockbuster from 1992 and is available for $3.99. Four bucks. You get a one dollar discount if you want to watch something 30 years old. Fantastic.

The category that will really open your eyes is new movies. Zootopia 2 just became available for digital purchase, with no physical editions, and is not yet available on Disney+. If you want to purchase the film, it costs $29.99. Rental is $24.99. Frankly I cannot imagine a world in which the number of people who would pay for that rental exceeds the number of people who opted to pirate but would have paid if the price was at least half that.

If you forget that the major studios own their own streaming services, then this math really doesn't work out. Surely they are getting more money per stream through purchase and rental than they are with the fractional payment they would get from licensing it.

But of course you have to remember that they do own their own streaming services - it's part of why everyone's complaining after all. The major producers, by discouraging short term rentals and pushing streaming services (note that Prime Video will try to sell you one of those subscriptions if the title is available on one), they are attempting to move from producers of cultural products to yet another industry of rent seekers.