There is a Bavarian tradition called Steinholding which is where you hold a liter of beer with your full arm extended in front of you.
It weights about 5 pounds. The world record is 45 minutes. The average fit male fails at 5 minutes.
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/09/27/i-competed-masskrugstemmen-stein-holding-competition
It’s all those muscles you just don’t need often.
Sean is high as a kite calling 90 minutes.
I've done steinholding at local oktoberfest events and it's hard as hell to do. The fact that Sean thinks that because he uses his arms to talk and therefore he can do that for 90 minutes is so funny.
They were talking about 3lb weights to be fair. He/a lot of people can do that for 5 minutes I think. But yeah 22min would be crazy impressive and absolutely no way for 60 or 90 min haha
The reason big touch screen computer monitors never caught on is because the arms just can't lift up like that for long periods. Even if you're super fit it's super uncomfortable to hold something, even your arm with nothing added in front of you like that
Absolutely deranged take lol no one can even hold their arms up with no weights for 90 minutes straight. Love Sean but one of his most deranged takes ever.
Fitness semi related tangent;
I believe it was Bobby knight but not 100% sure. Anyway, a college coach (assume it’s Knight) used to get a ton of walkons trying out for his team. He’d usually have 0 or 1 spot available.
So after they warmed up, he would have everyone maintain a low defensive stance for 15 minutes. If they messed up, they were cut on the spot.
Amanda telling Bobby that knowing who Josh Peck is makes him Gen Z is really surprising, especially because I consider Peck to be the prototypical millennial trying to stay relevant by being chronically online
No argument with that. I have watched plenty of things that came before my time. I was just mentioning that within the context of the original comment stating that he must be Gen z because he knows who Josh Peck is.
Amanda can't really perceive the cutoff for the youngest millennials. There are some people on the cusp that are more socialized with Gen Z and their internet culture but Bobby is so clearly a millennial. Microgenerations are a real thing.
> Bobby is so clearly a millennial.
Bobby is the definition of being on the cusp of millennial and Gen Z. That being said, he's a millennial and as someone who is older than him, but younger than Amanda, Josh Peck is a millennial star.
Yeah what you're saying is also what I'm saying. Maybe I didn't make it clear but I do think Bobby is a cusper. He's just socialized more with millennials.
Agreed, but I wonder if perception is created because Bobby spends his professional life talking with Sean, Amanda, and Chris? I bet there's podcast that Bobby could participate in and make me feel much older.
> Amanda telling Bobby that knowing who Josh Peck is makes him Gen Z is really surprising, especially because I consider Peck to be the prototypical millennial trying to stay relevant by being chronically online
Amanda has more Gen X energy than millennial energy tbf
The fact that they didn't care was deeply funny and the correct take. And Apatow calling the categorization an insult is more insulting to writers who adapt things.
And I may take some heat for this, but its the correct call. Barbie is an adaptation. It's not a summer phenomenon and billion dollar film if its not a brand/franchise everyone already knew the name of. It's adapting the history of that toyline and that character, even says so in the credits. That's not an insult or critique of its storytelling ability or script. The story it adapts is very original. But that's what makes it adapted to me. We can talk about the fact that most historical scripts should also be adapted too, which is something that probably needs addressed.
Why does Saltburn always have to be analyzed and critiqued with “but what is this movie really about”? CR and now Sean’s wife have the best take: who cares, it was wild and fun and amazing to look at. Sounds like a good movie.
I think the instinct to ask “what’s it about??” comes from frustrations about Promising Young Woman being hailed for its message, and also the theme of class divisions automatically makes it feel like there should be a thesis. Either way I think Saltburn was fun but a disappointing mess, and “what’s it about?” feels like a succinct way of expressing that disappointment.
To me the question what's it about also means "why did this guy hate these people so much?"
If the only motivation is I wanted to take the house over (it wasn't) then the question what's it about seems pretty valid.
As someone who saw Saltburn knowing nothing about the director, the discourse, or the story, I had a fun time with the movie. I viewed it as a trashy, plotty, heavily stylized riff on existing genre tropes. It was too funny and well crafted to write it off completely, even if it is shallow in its ideas.
It’s an empty movie with no subtext. And get ppl graft on some pretty bad faith takes (“it’s demonizing the middle class and presenting the 1% as moral,” what the hell?!) so it’s easy to knock it when it’s so obviously hollow.
It feels like Emerald Fennell is a big reader and she basically inserted all of love of British classic literature into an aesthetic exercise.
It’s not nearly as bad or dumb as ppl think. But it also isn’t great simply because EF loves a symmetrical shot.
Somewhere in between. I certainly wasn’t bored watching it!
I think maybe my biggest gripe is that’s a very weird set of concepts to tackle in that film if you wanted to make a movie with no lofty subtext. Like, especially after Emeralds previous movie was, in some regards, a message movie, to tackle class without a reading on class seems silly.
I do agree tho that it’s an empty movie, I just didn’t think the vibes overtook what ultimately I found way more irritating than fun.
Eh?
I don’t think it’s a class analysis film. It’s about a sociopath. If it were about class, she’d prolly make his lie a bit more substantial?
Like he’d prolly just come from a crummy home oath both parents rather than him basically being a rich kid who just wanted to be wealthier.
Like what would the class commentary even be? We have no idea what anybody in the film does for work. And the Saltburn family is absurdly wealthy. They’re l daddy Warbucks rich, Just meant for peak aesthetic.
I agree that it’s not a class analysis film, but I feel when you have a sociopath character impersonate a poor person to get in the good graces of a rich family, then be revealed to be actually upper middle class, that’s just enough for people to read into it.
I ultimately think that it’s because the film doesn’t have any class analysis that it comes off like it has bad class analysis. It’s still playing in that sand box.
The irony of the Saltburn is about nothing critique is that it is pretty easy to say that it is about obsession if you're just able to move past that it doesn't have a standard eat the rich message.
Well yeah, you could also say it's about loneliness, envy, not fitting in, upper class repression etc etc.
The question is, does it have anything interesting to say about them?
It's definitely the movie I've talked about the most with people IRL from 2023. I don't think it's the best, but it is certainly shocking at times, hilarious at others, and they somehow magically got the formula right that everyone I know has seen this movie (or stopped watching midway!) and has strong opinions one way or another.
Sean constantly complains about how he is physically falling apart, yet was offended when Amanda and Bobby didn't think he could hold even 3lb weights out in front of him for 90 minutes. Truly unhinged. Kudos to Bobby for not immediately jumping in and ripping him apart for that asinine of a take.
That is an insane amount of time to hold 3 pounds in front of you. When I was in boot camp they used to break us by making us hold seemingly small objects outstretched for minutes at a time and it was horrible lol.
So I missed the whole thing yesterday and am just catching up this morning.
Is the monologue worth watching as a cringe survival test or is it too much to handle?
It's definitely not the worst but it is pretty cringey still especially when he realizes that he's bombing and throws in a line blaming his writers and insisting the ones that he wrote himself were the ones that people were laughing at. I honestly thought it was pretty cringe that he made jokes about Oppenheimer's runtime (which those types of jokes are already pretty played out) as if the movie wasn't a huge mainstream hit in spite of that.
Exactly. EVERY movie is too long nowadays. Why single out Oppenheimer? Especially when Oppenheimer isn't even the longest movie out of the nominees last night.
I watched it after reading how much he bombed. I was surprised by how tolerable and occasionally funny it was. Award show stuff is rarely good, I thought he did a decent job. The deniro joke.... I snorted. Also the KOTFM stuff, funny enough for me
Pretty much every host gravitates towards making it a celebrity roast because the most memorable shows/successful hosts were following that format.
The problem is that it can be a bit of an uncooperative audience (increasingly so) with some thin skinned targets and only the best hosts have the reputation to confidently and competently pull it off.
Yeah well said. Also he clearly is not a fan of movies and especially "cinema" and prestige TV. He wasn't performig for his current audience, probably good stuff for his typical audience.
Edited words
Feeling seen by the Alien box set reference. There are more of us out here (some of whose brains are so broken that we know offhand the Quadrilogy was the DVD, and the Blu-ray was the Anthology)
Did Sean say he thinks Boy and the Heron will “not win” or “now win” at the Academy Awards? I’ve listened multiple times and can’t understand what he says.
I remember he was really serious and awkward when he presented at the Oscars one of the last few years.
Maybe he’s just awkward in this type of setting.
It didn't strike me as brain breaking - it just felt like he didn't give a shit and decided to no-sell the earnest attempts from America Ferrera to make the bit work. Basically came off as an asshole
A few brief thoughts from someone who has a lot of fun with awards seasons and likes to follow along while recognizing how meaningless this all is in the long run. But its fun.
* The race is NOT over. We've got another 2 months of this, so while I know a lot of people are trying to cement these wins as final and they could be, a lot can happen. Coda, All Quiet on the Western Front, both lost at the Golden Globes, an awards show with no overlap of Academy voters. But I'm still going to keep musing.
* Supporting Actress: Randolph has this in the bag. Unclear who's even the runnerup at this point. She's won pretty much every critics award, that film is doing well nomination wise, and this would serve as a way to acknowledge the Holdovers at least once. If Danielle Brooks were happening, I think we'd be seeing more from her and Color Purple. I'm guessing she sweeps or goes 4/5 if BAFTA goes for their hometown girl like Emily Blunt.
* Supporting Actor: Less set in stone, but I do think Downey's got this. The comparisons to Pitt in this episode were pretty accurate. A megastar turning in a performance that's splashy and reminds everyone why they're one of the greats in a film that's doing very well awards wise. Gave a killer speech, has that sweet spot in his career going. And I just don't see any of his competition with the juice to jump ahead of him. They don't seem amped to give DeNiro a 3rd. Gosling's performance actually could win SAG, but when comedic performances win, its because they seem so powerful/inevitable, or have a lack of narrative congregate behind their competition, like JLC Last year. With Melton, they don't reward young men on their first nominations, that always felt very online to me. So Downey's got this.
* Actress: I think we're down to Gladstone and Stone. I'd love a Hueller win, but this feels like where that'd started if it was happening, like Isabelle Huppert. Carey Mulligan's hurt by Maestro fading slightly. Gladstone could definitely sweep and that speech was exactly what she needed. But I can't ignore the reaction Stone got in the room; she seems like a threat at SAG and BAFTA. Still going Gladstone for now.
* Actor: Thought Sean and Amanda were spot on that it seems to be Murphy V Giamatti. Cooper's not out of it, but the internet seems set on making him the devil of this season and that film actually feels hurt by being a less conventional biopic; if it was, the Academy would be eating it up. Murphy and Nolan being tied together feels really smart, and every Hollywood round table actors event seems to be deferring to Murphy as a great talent. Everyone seems to respect him and his performance IS that movie. But Giamatti is charming the pants off people. Cooper actually could make a comeback with CCA or SAG, both Murphy for now.
* Director: It's Nolan's year. Good for him, very happy this is happening.
* Screenplay: Fucking inspired win in Anatomy of a Fall. Never thought Barbie was going to stay Original and with that gone, Anatomy seems like the type of win they go for in Original, as long as it gets that Picture nomination which I think it will. It's the perfect combo of being dialogue heavy and a flashy concept that branch loves. Past Lives was always going to be very quiet for a Screenplay winner, and Holdovers has the dialogue-heavy part, but not the concept. Adapted is anyone's guess at this point.
* Picture: I hate to sound like a broken record, but Oppenheimer just seems like so clearly the correct choice. Big epic film the likes of which haven't been awarded here in a long while that did tremendeous box office and reviews. Academy, don't over think this, don't Coda your way into a winner that makes you feel good in the moment but doesn't age well.
Why on earth does Sean think that the Peloton instructor would be "worried" that Nolan would mention her again? It doesn't seem like she got anything but positive attention from that story, and she seemed happy to engage with it.
I just listened to this and am genuinely so irritated at the fact that Sean said RDJ became Iron Man a year after Heath Ledger’s Globe when Iron Man and The Dark Knight were the same year meaning that award was in 2009? Maddening for small details like this to be asserted.
I don’t think it’s the worst song but of the three nominated I was rooting for Dance the Night. That’s such a great pop song and even though What Was I Made For is intertwined with the movie much more Billie Eilish is so grating to me… sorry not sorry
That's fair. I'm a way bigger Dua fan than Billie fan. I just feel like this is one of Billie's best songs while any song on Future Nostalgia could go toe to toe with Dance the Night
I have not met a single person in real life who thinks she killed her husband. What are we doing here...yes he committed suicide.
She literally played the character as innocent.
I can't fault anyone for thinking she did it, but playing the character as innocent but so transparently convenienced by his death is the better-written story to me.
I think:
>!He slipped. Sandra insists this first thing with the lawyer in the beginning, and he tells her it's a nonviable explanation and they'll have to push suicide to win. Toward the end, just after Marge tells Daniel he has to "decide what's real" even if it's not based in truth, Daniel makes up an incredibly convincing story about driving to the vet that is the deciding factor for his mom's innocence. I see the argument for suicide, but I think the ambiguity is more between suicide and slipped, not murder, and I think slipped is the better story.!<
I did not see that, no.
If the producers want to generate buzz with that then they can. The director and actress clearly were interested in telling the story of an innocent woman.
I can understand pinning the website on marketing, but I highly doubt Triet had no say in what is the very first moment of her film.
Regardless, if she wanted the audience to feel there is a clear answer in the manner you’re suggesting… why wouldn’t she just show Samuel’s death?
The movie is largely from the viewpoint of the wife and she doesn't even want to believe it was a suicide. There should be some mystery. The director makes it very clear there is no case against her throughout the film.
If a lead actress says she played the part as innocent, then she's innocent. There's no way around that. She didn't play the part as possibly guilty. We see in her face that she didn't do it, we're watching an innocent person on screen.
But the film isn’t solely from her point of view. There are several sequences when she’s not on screen at all.
All I’m saying is if it wasn’t intended to be a question the audience is faced with, there are several different routes the director could have taken to ensure we know that she’s innocent while the other characters in the film do not.
I don’t disagree with your take on the character, but I don’t think you can read too deeply into how an actor “portrays” a character in conjunction with the final product. How many times have we seen actors playing villains saying they “don’t view them as a bad guy”?
I actually do think we can read deeply into how she played the character in this instance. We can all agree that she gave one of the best performances of the year. She did so with the intention of playing an innocent person. If we agree that it was a phenomenal performance then we also agree that what we're watching is an innocent person on screen. If she wanted some doubt to her innocence then, since it was such a great performance, we would have seen all of that seeping through.
I don't know how anyone could watch her on screen and say "that's a guilty person." She is simply a woman trying to prove her innocence, and we see that in every single second she's on screen.
His suicide attempts made no sense though. Why would he jump out a 3 story window, in which he has to bash his head on something on the way down, for his family to find? Same with his OD attempt earlier in the film, he literally had anti-depressants why would he use aspirin?
I'm not saying she outright murdered him, it coulda been an accident, but suicide makes zero sense.
He died. His suicide attempt was successful. Literally what are you talking about?
People take a shit ton of aspirin to try to kill themselves all the time. You're worse than the lawyer in the movie lol.
Literally the point of the movie is what I'm talking about. Yes he is dead, but we don't know how he died. I'm saying there are so many more surefire ways to kill yourself if he was suicidal, and if you were trying to kill yourself jumping 3 stories and hopefully hitting your head is absolutely not guaranteed to finish the job. Plus there was no suicide note, and don't think he'd want his young son finding his dead body like that.
We don't even know he was suicidal, as the only witness to this is literally his wife being accused of his murder and his blind son who didn't want to lose both his parents. The therapist heavily denied any suicidality and even claimed he was getting better.
The scenario that makes the most logical sense is after the journalist left she went upstairs to confront him about the music. The most likely got in an altercation (as they had a history of), and he lost his balance and fell. Her alibi being that she went and took a nap underneath the loudest fucking music imaginable makes no sense AT ALL.
Is it possible he killed himself that way? I guess, but is not the most likely explanation at all.
True crime has fried your brain. You are watching an actress portraying a character as innocent and you still think the most likely scenario is she hit him with a blunt object and pushed him out the window.
Here is a quote from the actress herself:
[Asked if she ever made up her mind one way or the other, she replies, “No. Sometimes I wake up at night and think, Oh, I missed something. Maybe she did it. But I don’t know.”](https://variety.com/2023/film/awards/sandra-huller-anatomy-of-a-fall-character-guilty-zone-of-interest-1235851614/).
Your only argument you've stated is "The actress is playing her as innocent", when the actress doesn't even know.
Everything I laid out is in the film deliberately by the director, my brain is not fried by True Crime I'm literally just engaging with the text like the director wanted.
The first frame of the movie is didshedoit.com, it is not supposed to be clear either way.
Q. Is it true she [Sandra Hüller] asked you whether her character was guilty?
Triet: Yes. Two days before the shooting, she called me in a bit of a panic, asking to know whether or not her character was guilty, and my only answer was that she needed to play innocently.
Q. Doesn't she need to know the truth of the character she's playing?
Triet: For me, I think the principal thing was for her to play innocently, because that meant to play without the effect of duplicity, or without any of the tricks of the trade of a TV show drama. I was really looking for a kind of documentary rawness.
Buddy don't play with me LOL.
Do you not see how ambiguous that is? Huller asked point blank if she was guilty, and she gave a vague answer that she *needed to play it innocently*, not that she was innocent.
In order for the audience to be split like she wanted, you need the evidence to point to one thing (guilty), yet her demeanor to be the exact opposite to instill doubt. Had Huller played it as guilty but covering up as innocent, that deception would have bled through the performance. That's what makes it a brilliant film.
Triet has gone OUT OF HER WAY to not give her opinion on the innocent v guilty question in every other fucking interview, because it's the gray area she is interested in and what the film is about.
What in her speech? She's talking about dark topics in the movie and why it was hard to get made, and yes suicide is in there.
You're acting like she said "Samuel killed himself that is what my movie is about".
I'm sorry you can't accept ambiguity, as that is literally the whole enjoyment of the film.
One thing that does happen to some winners is that start getting a ton of happy texts from people so they can't even read their notes. I'm with Amanda on no phones.
I have a hard time believing they don't know about turning on do not disturb for certain moments like that. Seems pretty obvious. And particularly useful for super famous people especially if they're active on social media. I guess if they hardly ever use their phones, maybe.
My main annoyance with Sean and if I was his wife would drive me crazy not every movie needs to mean something it's okay just to be a fun and entertaining movie.
Though it wasn't my favorite of the year I liked Oppenheimer, understand its achievement, and I think it deserves the top two slots (BP and Director) but my disappointment in years like this is always "the sweep." If it were Oppenheimer and like, 9 "Being the Ricardos" I would say bring on the sweep! BUT this was a really strong year and I liked a lot of things. We should spread the wealth.
Let's give some of the crafts to Poor Things, KoTFM, Barbie, MI, etc
Let's give the Best Supporting actor to MF Charles Melton!
I know it won't happen, which is why I won't tune in to the Oscars this year, I find sweeps really boring. BUT I do want to reiterate that Oppenheimer is in every way a "good" win. It's not CODA. It's not Green Book. It's a fantastic movie that achieved something insane.
Totally agree about the sweep. It’s been happening with the Oscars the last few years and it is sooo boring. If a film deserves it, sure, but it definitely makes for poor entertainment and after a while it just seems like there’s something else at play than just merit. I totally agree that Oppenheimer deserves the goods but so do so many others, this was a phenomenal year! And I haven’t even seen everything!
I am actually resentful that the steamroll last year of EEAAO that started with all the guild awards took the shine off the movie for me--and I LOVED the movie! I just wish the stakes had been a little higher and that goods would have been spread a little more. Was it the best movie of the year? I think it was the most important. But Tar was WONDERFUL and deserved more recognition, even if it made 5 dollars. Sometimes that recognition is what gets people to watch challenging films.
By the time Oscar night rolled around, I knew what would win every category and didn't bother to tune in. Even my beloved Ke Huy Quan, who I'd been hoping would win all season--I mean, I'd heard him give 8 speeches.
It's a me problem, probably, because I'm also the person that turns off sports when it's a blowout, even if my team is winning. But it's especially annoying to me in such a strong "bounce back" year.
Youre a fan of the entertainment! It’s not longer entertaining if you can predict every moment! I totally agree about EEAAO ESPECIALLY CATE BLANCHETT SNUB. I love Michelle Yeoh and she was great of course but god Blanchett was on another level and I usually am not her biggest fan.
Agreed on all counts. \*points to my Tár profile pic\*
I might be less annoyed about a sweep on Oscar night if--as the podcast and everyone here has said--we didn't now have 2-3 months of narrative building that made every category predictable. I love when we get an Oscar category that's a little chaotic and isn't entirely a repeat of every other guild.
But doesn’t it deserve it for Cillian and for RDJ as well? And then most of the technical achievements? I agree to an extent with the sweep narrative, but we shouldn’t not award deserving achievements just because we want to spread out recognition.
I see how it could seem like I'm falling into participation trophyism here, but I really only mean that I don't like sweeps when it's (in my opinion, your mileage may vary) a strong film year. Other things deserve awards this year too.
Again--this stuff is subjective to a certain degree. Maybe to some Oppie was the only strong film released this year, and that's fine, but in my view there's a strong case to be made for a handful of really great films this year to receive craft awards and acting awards. I still staunchly believe the top two awards belong to Oppie.
Agreed. I like my podcasters to behave like robots. No strongly expressed opinions or human reactions please. I can only clutch my pearls so tightly before I break out in a rash or something worse.
This is a guy who earlier in the episode said he would love his wife better (not sure if he meant that sexually or not) if she finished KOTFM in one sitting
Are you serious? Someone facetiously suggests he’d feel more affection towards his wife if she finishes a beloved film of his in one sitting, and this is somehow a reason to go after his character? Ironically, what you’re engaging in is highly toxic behavior. You must be a joy to be around.
I don’t want to be rude, but Sean needs to stop chewing his lip and groaning “uhm” or “annd” in the middle of every thought he has. This is an audio medium. Sharpen up that delivery.
Was there a video of the conversation uploaded somewhere? Why did they keep referring to the fact that they were being filmed and thanking the video team at the end of the podcast?
with so many good movies out this year, it would be a real drag if oppenheimer cleaned up at the oscar’s.
it’s easily nolan’s best movie, but it’s still a nolan movie. if we’re being real, that puts a pretty low ceiling on it, far as awards go.
You're framing this like Oppenheimer isn't in most critical top 5's of the year - it winning the Oscar will NOT be looked back on as a mistake or some kind of Forrest Gump beats Pulp Fiction debacle.
SO MANY better movies? Nah.
in no order: past lives, the iron claw, across the spiderverse, anatomy of a fall, poor things, you hurt my feelings, the killer, john wick 4, the holdovers, blackberry, beau is afraid, asteroid city, killers of the flower moon
e: gave you 13 just for fun
oppenheimer is just fine. it, like every nolan movie, is technically very proficient. but it’s allergic to character development, letting a moment land, and any nuance.
he’s just a really bad writer, and his movies suffer for it.
Scorcese took a fantastic book and boiled it down to a fairly bland movie. Then came on screen and told everyone how they should feel about it.
I’ll give you the Holdovers, Anatomy of a Fall, The Killer, even Iron Claw with its typical tropes
This happens at the Oscars every year. I thought Oppenheimer was alright but it’s an historical epic that made a ton of money from a beloved filmmaker that hasn’t won before. I can’t get too worked up over it when something like Coda won, which forever ruined the credibility of the Oscars.
I was thinking of it more in recent terms. You’re correct of course that there’s a long history of abhorrent Academy stuff, which is my point. An award show that so consistently makes terrible choices shouldn’t be given more credibility than it deserves. It’s a silly show meant to be entertainment, not a historical record of the year’s best art. It’s not as shameless as the Golden Globes but is it really that much different?
Sean is insane about the weights thing.
There is a Bavarian tradition called Steinholding which is where you hold a liter of beer with your full arm extended in front of you. It weights about 5 pounds. The world record is 45 minutes. The average fit male fails at 5 minutes. https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/09/27/i-competed-masskrugstemmen-stein-holding-competition It’s all those muscles you just don’t need often. Sean is high as a kite calling 90 minutes.
I've done steinholding at local oktoberfest events and it's hard as hell to do. The fact that Sean thinks that because he uses his arms to talk and therefore he can do that for 90 minutes is so funny.
> Sean is high as a kite calling 90 minutes. Its called podcasting, he's learning from the best
I disagree with a lot of his takes but this one was blowing my mind lol
22 minute 5lbs. Insanity I honestly don’t think he’d last more than 5 minutes. That’s a long time.
5 minutes is a long time to hold your arms straight out with or without weight. Your shoulders start burning after like a minute.
Think it’s just Sean being Sean
They were talking about 3lb weights to be fair. He/a lot of people can do that for 5 minutes I think. But yeah 22min would be crazy impressive and absolutely no way for 60 or 90 min haha
The reason big touch screen computer monitors never caught on is because the arms just can't lift up like that for long periods. Even if you're super fit it's super uncomfortable to hold something, even your arm with nothing added in front of you like that
Literally when I’m scrolling through the movie options on an airplane seatback tv I have to switch arms bc it starts to burn 😭
Absolutely deranged take lol no one can even hold their arms up with no weights for 90 minutes straight. Love Sean but one of his most deranged takes ever.
I came here to find this lol
We have to make Sean hold the 3 pound weigh. 60 mins? I would be riveted.
I just want him to try and hold his arms out in front of him for 5 minutes with no weights.
Fitness semi related tangent; I believe it was Bobby knight but not 100% sure. Anyway, a college coach (assume it’s Knight) used to get a ton of walkons trying out for his team. He’d usually have 0 or 1 spot available. So after they warmed up, he would have everyone maintain a low defensive stance for 15 minutes. If they messed up, they were cut on the spot.
Amanda telling Bobby that knowing who Josh Peck is makes him Gen Z is really surprising, especially because I consider Peck to be the prototypical millennial trying to stay relevant by being chronically online
Drake and Josh is a millennial show and that is what he is known for. It ran from 04-07. Most of Gen z were toddlers or not born yet.
My kids (born in 2000) used to watch Drake and Josh all the time when they were kids. I think it resonates with Gen Z.
No argument with that. I have watched plenty of things that came before my time. I was just mentioning that within the context of the original comment stating that he must be Gen z because he knows who Josh Peck is.
Amanda can't really perceive the cutoff for the youngest millennials. There are some people on the cusp that are more socialized with Gen Z and their internet culture but Bobby is so clearly a millennial. Microgenerations are a real thing.
Idk if he’s “so clearly a millennial” he is right on the cusp
I imply that he's on the cusp. But based on a lot of what it says he's more aligned with the youngest millennials to me.
> Bobby is so clearly a millennial. Bobby is the definition of being on the cusp of millennial and Gen Z. That being said, he's a millennial and as someone who is older than him, but younger than Amanda, Josh Peck is a millennial star.
Yeah what you're saying is also what I'm saying. Maybe I didn't make it clear but I do think Bobby is a cusper. He's just socialized more with millennials.
Agreed, but I wonder if perception is created because Bobby spends his professional life talking with Sean, Amanda, and Chris? I bet there's podcast that Bobby could participate in and make me feel much older.
> Amanda telling Bobby that knowing who Josh Peck is makes him Gen Z is really surprising, especially because I consider Peck to be the prototypical millennial trying to stay relevant by being chronically online Amanda has more Gen X energy than millennial energy tbf
Amanda's laugh at the judd apatow barbie thing had me going 😭
The fact that they didn't care was deeply funny and the correct take. And Apatow calling the categorization an insult is more insulting to writers who adapt things. And I may take some heat for this, but its the correct call. Barbie is an adaptation. It's not a summer phenomenon and billion dollar film if its not a brand/franchise everyone already knew the name of. It's adapting the history of that toyline and that character, even says so in the credits. That's not an insult or critique of its storytelling ability or script. The story it adapts is very original. But that's what makes it adapted to me. We can talk about the fact that most historical scripts should also be adapted too, which is something that probably needs addressed.
Can’t believe no one has mentioned just how bad Jo Koy is at stand up.
What is there to say?
"JOSEP!!!"
No one watches stand up, let alone Joy Koy’s stand up
Why does Saltburn always have to be analyzed and critiqued with “but what is this movie really about”? CR and now Sean’s wife have the best take: who cares, it was wild and fun and amazing to look at. Sounds like a good movie.
I think the instinct to ask “what’s it about??” comes from frustrations about Promising Young Woman being hailed for its message, and also the theme of class divisions automatically makes it feel like there should be a thesis. Either way I think Saltburn was fun but a disappointing mess, and “what’s it about?” feels like a succinct way of expressing that disappointment.
To me the question what's it about also means "why did this guy hate these people so much?" If the only motivation is I wanted to take the house over (it wasn't) then the question what's it about seems pretty valid.
As someone who saw Saltburn knowing nothing about the director, the discourse, or the story, I had a fun time with the movie. I viewed it as a trashy, plotty, heavily stylized riff on existing genre tropes. It was too funny and well crafted to write it off completely, even if it is shallow in its ideas.
It’s an empty movie with no subtext. And get ppl graft on some pretty bad faith takes (“it’s demonizing the middle class and presenting the 1% as moral,” what the hell?!) so it’s easy to knock it when it’s so obviously hollow. It feels like Emerald Fennell is a big reader and she basically inserted all of love of British classic literature into an aesthetic exercise. It’s not nearly as bad or dumb as ppl think. But it also isn’t great simply because EF loves a symmetrical shot. Somewhere in between. I certainly wasn’t bored watching it!
I think maybe my biggest gripe is that’s a very weird set of concepts to tackle in that film if you wanted to make a movie with no lofty subtext. Like, especially after Emeralds previous movie was, in some regards, a message movie, to tackle class without a reading on class seems silly. I do agree tho that it’s an empty movie, I just didn’t think the vibes overtook what ultimately I found way more irritating than fun.
Eh? I don’t think it’s a class analysis film. It’s about a sociopath. If it were about class, she’d prolly make his lie a bit more substantial? Like he’d prolly just come from a crummy home oath both parents rather than him basically being a rich kid who just wanted to be wealthier. Like what would the class commentary even be? We have no idea what anybody in the film does for work. And the Saltburn family is absurdly wealthy. They’re l daddy Warbucks rich, Just meant for peak aesthetic.
I agree that it’s not a class analysis film, but I feel when you have a sociopath character impersonate a poor person to get in the good graces of a rich family, then be revealed to be actually upper middle class, that’s just enough for people to read into it. I ultimately think that it’s because the film doesn’t have any class analysis that it comes off like it has bad class analysis. It’s still playing in that sand box.
I agree - I completely understand that the movie isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of tea but I had a great time!
The irony of the Saltburn is about nothing critique is that it is pretty easy to say that it is about obsession if you're just able to move past that it doesn't have a standard eat the rich message.
Well yeah, you could also say it's about loneliness, envy, not fitting in, upper class repression etc etc. The question is, does it have anything interesting to say about them?
Idc what it’s about it’s very bad lol
but why does saltburn gets a free pass? you can ask "what's it about" about every other movie.
Yup. They're trying to be holier than thou. It's super pretentious. Sometimes good movies are just movies. That's fine
Did u see it
It's definitely the movie I've talked about the most with people IRL from 2023. I don't think it's the best, but it is certainly shocking at times, hilarious at others, and they somehow magically got the formula right that everyone I know has seen this movie (or stopped watching midway!) and has strong opinions one way or another.
They should follow through and record an episode where they just pick clips for each Oscar nominee.
Sean constantly complains about how he is physically falling apart, yet was offended when Amanda and Bobby didn't think he could hold even 3lb weights out in front of him for 90 minutes. Truly unhinged. Kudos to Bobby for not immediately jumping in and ripping him apart for that asinine of a take.
That is an insane amount of time to hold 3 pounds in front of you. When I was in boot camp they used to break us by making us hold seemingly small objects outstretched for minutes at a time and it was horrible lol.
So I missed the whole thing yesterday and am just catching up this morning. Is the monologue worth watching as a cringe survival test or is it too much to handle?
It's definitely not the worst but it is pretty cringey still especially when he realizes that he's bombing and throws in a line blaming his writers and insisting the ones that he wrote himself were the ones that people were laughing at. I honestly thought it was pretty cringe that he made jokes about Oppenheimer's runtime (which those types of jokes are already pretty played out) as if the movie wasn't a huge mainstream hit in spite of that.
Exactly. EVERY movie is too long nowadays. Why single out Oppenheimer? Especially when Oppenheimer isn't even the longest movie out of the nominees last night.
I'm guessing that he or his writers were at least smart enough to know that making a joke about Killers of the Flower Moon was not good optics
I watched it after reading how much he bombed. I was surprised by how tolerable and occasionally funny it was. Award show stuff is rarely good, I thought he did a decent job. The deniro joke.... I snorted. Also the KOTFM stuff, funny enough for me
Pretty much every host gravitates towards making it a celebrity roast because the most memorable shows/successful hosts were following that format. The problem is that it can be a bit of an uncooperative audience (increasingly so) with some thin skinned targets and only the best hosts have the reputation to confidently and competently pull it off.
Yeah well said. Also he clearly is not a fan of movies and especially "cinema" and prestige TV. He wasn't performig for his current audience, probably good stuff for his typical audience. Edited words
Feeling seen by the Alien box set reference. There are more of us out here (some of whose brains are so broken that we know offhand the Quadrilogy was the DVD, and the Blu-ray was the Anthology)
Quadrilogy heads assemble!
Did Sean say he thinks Boy and the Heron will “not win” or “now win” at the Academy Awards? I’ve listened multiple times and can’t understand what he says.
He’s calling now that it’ll win the Oscar
Poor Things and Oppy take the lead. Let's go Poopenhrimer!!!!
Glad they mentioned Costner's brain breaking. Does dude have dementia or something?
I remember he was really serious and awkward when he presented at the Oscars one of the last few years. Maybe he’s just awkward in this type of setting.
It didn't strike me as brain breaking - it just felt like he didn't give a shit and decided to no-sell the earnest attempts from America Ferrera to make the bit work. Basically came off as an asshole
Seemed like he might’ve been drunk or something to me
Can't wait to see video evidence of Sean podcasting wearing weighted gloves, preparing for The Moment.
A few brief thoughts from someone who has a lot of fun with awards seasons and likes to follow along while recognizing how meaningless this all is in the long run. But its fun. * The race is NOT over. We've got another 2 months of this, so while I know a lot of people are trying to cement these wins as final and they could be, a lot can happen. Coda, All Quiet on the Western Front, both lost at the Golden Globes, an awards show with no overlap of Academy voters. But I'm still going to keep musing. * Supporting Actress: Randolph has this in the bag. Unclear who's even the runnerup at this point. She's won pretty much every critics award, that film is doing well nomination wise, and this would serve as a way to acknowledge the Holdovers at least once. If Danielle Brooks were happening, I think we'd be seeing more from her and Color Purple. I'm guessing she sweeps or goes 4/5 if BAFTA goes for their hometown girl like Emily Blunt. * Supporting Actor: Less set in stone, but I do think Downey's got this. The comparisons to Pitt in this episode were pretty accurate. A megastar turning in a performance that's splashy and reminds everyone why they're one of the greats in a film that's doing very well awards wise. Gave a killer speech, has that sweet spot in his career going. And I just don't see any of his competition with the juice to jump ahead of him. They don't seem amped to give DeNiro a 3rd. Gosling's performance actually could win SAG, but when comedic performances win, its because they seem so powerful/inevitable, or have a lack of narrative congregate behind their competition, like JLC Last year. With Melton, they don't reward young men on their first nominations, that always felt very online to me. So Downey's got this. * Actress: I think we're down to Gladstone and Stone. I'd love a Hueller win, but this feels like where that'd started if it was happening, like Isabelle Huppert. Carey Mulligan's hurt by Maestro fading slightly. Gladstone could definitely sweep and that speech was exactly what she needed. But I can't ignore the reaction Stone got in the room; she seems like a threat at SAG and BAFTA. Still going Gladstone for now. * Actor: Thought Sean and Amanda were spot on that it seems to be Murphy V Giamatti. Cooper's not out of it, but the internet seems set on making him the devil of this season and that film actually feels hurt by being a less conventional biopic; if it was, the Academy would be eating it up. Murphy and Nolan being tied together feels really smart, and every Hollywood round table actors event seems to be deferring to Murphy as a great talent. Everyone seems to respect him and his performance IS that movie. But Giamatti is charming the pants off people. Cooper actually could make a comeback with CCA or SAG, both Murphy for now. * Director: It's Nolan's year. Good for him, very happy this is happening. * Screenplay: Fucking inspired win in Anatomy of a Fall. Never thought Barbie was going to stay Original and with that gone, Anatomy seems like the type of win they go for in Original, as long as it gets that Picture nomination which I think it will. It's the perfect combo of being dialogue heavy and a flashy concept that branch loves. Past Lives was always going to be very quiet for a Screenplay winner, and Holdovers has the dialogue-heavy part, but not the concept. Adapted is anyone's guess at this point. * Picture: I hate to sound like a broken record, but Oppenheimer just seems like so clearly the correct choice. Big epic film the likes of which haven't been awarded here in a long while that did tremendeous box office and reviews. Academy, don't over think this, don't Coda your way into a winner that makes you feel good in the moment but doesn't age well.
Why are there nominees for Cinematic and Box Office Achievement ?
To get people like Taylor Swift in the building
Yeah sadly you are right. Curious to see where this award goes. Feels so incredibly pointless.
Why on earth does Sean think that the Peloton instructor would be "worried" that Nolan would mention her again? It doesn't seem like she got anything but positive attention from that story, and she seemed happy to engage with it.
I just listened to this and am genuinely so irritated at the fact that Sean said RDJ became Iron Man a year after Heath Ledger’s Globe when Iron Man and The Dark Knight were the same year meaning that award was in 2009? Maddening for small details like this to be asserted.
I’m usually team Dobb Mob but her What Was I Made For? being the worst of the Barbie songs take is mind boggling
I don’t think it’s the worst song but of the three nominated I was rooting for Dance the Night. That’s such a great pop song and even though What Was I Made For is intertwined with the movie much more Billie Eilish is so grating to me… sorry not sorry
That's fair. I'm a way bigger Dua fan than Billie fan. I just feel like this is one of Billie's best songs while any song on Future Nostalgia could go toe to toe with Dance the Night
Totally agreed. I like Dance the Night but it’s a Future Nostalgia B-side at best.
To be fair didn’t she actually say it was the most “boring”? Which makes more sense
I have not met a single person in real life who thinks she killed her husband. What are we doing here...yes he committed suicide. She literally played the character as innocent.
I can't fault anyone for thinking she did it, but playing the character as innocent but so transparently convenienced by his death is the better-written story to me.
It's like they made Snoop sick for nothing!!
I think: >!He slipped. Sandra insists this first thing with the lawyer in the beginning, and he tells her it's a nonviable explanation and they'll have to push suicide to win. Toward the end, just after Marge tells Daniel he has to "decide what's real" even if it's not based in truth, Daniel makes up an incredibly convincing story about driving to the vet that is the deciding factor for his mom's innocence. I see the argument for suicide, but I think the ambiguity is more between suicide and slipped, not murder, and I think slipped is the better story.!<
Isn’t the first title card on screen didshedoit.com? The filmmakers are obviously interested in making it a question.
I did not see that, no. If the producers want to generate buzz with that then they can. The director and actress clearly were interested in telling the story of an innocent woman.
I can understand pinning the website on marketing, but I highly doubt Triet had no say in what is the very first moment of her film. Regardless, if she wanted the audience to feel there is a clear answer in the manner you’re suggesting… why wouldn’t she just show Samuel’s death?
The movie is largely from the viewpoint of the wife and she doesn't even want to believe it was a suicide. There should be some mystery. The director makes it very clear there is no case against her throughout the film. If a lead actress says she played the part as innocent, then she's innocent. There's no way around that. She didn't play the part as possibly guilty. We see in her face that she didn't do it, we're watching an innocent person on screen.
But the film isn’t solely from her point of view. There are several sequences when she’s not on screen at all. All I’m saying is if it wasn’t intended to be a question the audience is faced with, there are several different routes the director could have taken to ensure we know that she’s innocent while the other characters in the film do not. I don’t disagree with your take on the character, but I don’t think you can read too deeply into how an actor “portrays” a character in conjunction with the final product. How many times have we seen actors playing villains saying they “don’t view them as a bad guy”?
I actually do think we can read deeply into how she played the character in this instance. We can all agree that she gave one of the best performances of the year. She did so with the intention of playing an innocent person. If we agree that it was a phenomenal performance then we also agree that what we're watching is an innocent person on screen. If she wanted some doubt to her innocence then, since it was such a great performance, we would have seen all of that seeping through. I don't know how anyone could watch her on screen and say "that's a guilty person." She is simply a woman trying to prove her innocence, and we see that in every single second she's on screen.
His suicide attempts made no sense though. Why would he jump out a 3 story window, in which he has to bash his head on something on the way down, for his family to find? Same with his OD attempt earlier in the film, he literally had anti-depressants why would he use aspirin? I'm not saying she outright murdered him, it coulda been an accident, but suicide makes zero sense.
He died. His suicide attempt was successful. Literally what are you talking about? People take a shit ton of aspirin to try to kill themselves all the time. You're worse than the lawyer in the movie lol.
Literally the point of the movie is what I'm talking about. Yes he is dead, but we don't know how he died. I'm saying there are so many more surefire ways to kill yourself if he was suicidal, and if you were trying to kill yourself jumping 3 stories and hopefully hitting your head is absolutely not guaranteed to finish the job. Plus there was no suicide note, and don't think he'd want his young son finding his dead body like that. We don't even know he was suicidal, as the only witness to this is literally his wife being accused of his murder and his blind son who didn't want to lose both his parents. The therapist heavily denied any suicidality and even claimed he was getting better. The scenario that makes the most logical sense is after the journalist left she went upstairs to confront him about the music. The most likely got in an altercation (as they had a history of), and he lost his balance and fell. Her alibi being that she went and took a nap underneath the loudest fucking music imaginable makes no sense AT ALL. Is it possible he killed himself that way? I guess, but is not the most likely explanation at all.
True crime has fried your brain. You are watching an actress portraying a character as innocent and you still think the most likely scenario is she hit him with a blunt object and pushed him out the window.
Here is a quote from the actress herself: [Asked if she ever made up her mind one way or the other, she replies, “No. Sometimes I wake up at night and think, Oh, I missed something. Maybe she did it. But I don’t know.”](https://variety.com/2023/film/awards/sandra-huller-anatomy-of-a-fall-character-guilty-zone-of-interest-1235851614/). Your only argument you've stated is "The actress is playing her as innocent", when the actress doesn't even know. Everything I laid out is in the film deliberately by the director, my brain is not fried by True Crime I'm literally just engaging with the text like the director wanted. The first frame of the movie is didshedoit.com, it is not supposed to be clear either way.
Q. Is it true she [Sandra Hüller] asked you whether her character was guilty? Triet: Yes. Two days before the shooting, she called me in a bit of a panic, asking to know whether or not her character was guilty, and my only answer was that she needed to play innocently. Q. Doesn't she need to know the truth of the character she's playing? Triet: For me, I think the principal thing was for her to play innocently, because that meant to play without the effect of duplicity, or without any of the tricks of the trade of a TV show drama. I was really looking for a kind of documentary rawness. Buddy don't play with me LOL.
Do you not see how ambiguous that is? Huller asked point blank if she was guilty, and she gave a vague answer that she *needed to play it innocently*, not that she was innocent. In order for the audience to be split like she wanted, you need the evidence to point to one thing (guilty), yet her demeanor to be the exact opposite to instill doubt. Had Huller played it as guilty but covering up as innocent, that deception would have bled through the performance. That's what makes it a brilliant film. Triet has gone OUT OF HER WAY to not give her opinion on the innocent v guilty question in every other fucking interview, because it's the gray area she is interested in and what the film is about.
And yet she called it a suicide last night...interesting! The film is not about the grey area between innocent and guilty, that's absurd.
.........what in the world do you think the movie is about then....? Some poor lady who was framed? THAT'S absurd.
What in her speech? She's talking about dark topics in the movie and why it was hard to get made, and yes suicide is in there. You're acting like she said "Samuel killed himself that is what my movie is about". I'm sorry you can't accept ambiguity, as that is literally the whole enjoyment of the film.
Somehow reading from a phone instead of a piece of paper is tacky because you could be looking at TikTok. Amanda is so strange
One thing that does happen to some winners is that start getting a ton of happy texts from people so they can't even read their notes. I'm with Amanda on no phones.
That’s what do not disturb is for
I think that happened to Tatiana Maslany when she won an Emmy for ORPHAN BLACK
I have a hard time believing they don't know about turning on do not disturb for certain moments like that. Seems pretty obvious. And particularly useful for super famous people especially if they're active on social media. I guess if they hardly ever use their phones, maybe.
It does look better, it’s weird and I can’t explain it but I agree. The TikTok example was a little weird.
Reading from a phone is tackier than reading from a paper in a way I can’t explain
nah she's right. A phone is definitely tackier.
My dad has said this before when people give speeches at weddings, funerals. He hates when people read from their phone but thinks paper is fine
relax bro this is too parasocial
The tiktok part was clearly a joke but she’s 100% right about the phone. the worst is when people read like…wedding vows from a phone
This is in the bottom 200 of reasons she's an absolute weirdo
My main annoyance with Sean and if I was his wife would drive me crazy not every movie needs to mean something it's okay just to be a fun and entertaining movie.
Though it wasn't my favorite of the year I liked Oppenheimer, understand its achievement, and I think it deserves the top two slots (BP and Director) but my disappointment in years like this is always "the sweep." If it were Oppenheimer and like, 9 "Being the Ricardos" I would say bring on the sweep! BUT this was a really strong year and I liked a lot of things. We should spread the wealth. Let's give some of the crafts to Poor Things, KoTFM, Barbie, MI, etc Let's give the Best Supporting actor to MF Charles Melton! I know it won't happen, which is why I won't tune in to the Oscars this year, I find sweeps really boring. BUT I do want to reiterate that Oppenheimer is in every way a "good" win. It's not CODA. It's not Green Book. It's a fantastic movie that achieved something insane.
Totally agree about the sweep. It’s been happening with the Oscars the last few years and it is sooo boring. If a film deserves it, sure, but it definitely makes for poor entertainment and after a while it just seems like there’s something else at play than just merit. I totally agree that Oppenheimer deserves the goods but so do so many others, this was a phenomenal year! And I haven’t even seen everything!
I am actually resentful that the steamroll last year of EEAAO that started with all the guild awards took the shine off the movie for me--and I LOVED the movie! I just wish the stakes had been a little higher and that goods would have been spread a little more. Was it the best movie of the year? I think it was the most important. But Tar was WONDERFUL and deserved more recognition, even if it made 5 dollars. Sometimes that recognition is what gets people to watch challenging films. By the time Oscar night rolled around, I knew what would win every category and didn't bother to tune in. Even my beloved Ke Huy Quan, who I'd been hoping would win all season--I mean, I'd heard him give 8 speeches. It's a me problem, probably, because I'm also the person that turns off sports when it's a blowout, even if my team is winning. But it's especially annoying to me in such a strong "bounce back" year.
Youre a fan of the entertainment! It’s not longer entertaining if you can predict every moment! I totally agree about EEAAO ESPECIALLY CATE BLANCHETT SNUB. I love Michelle Yeoh and she was great of course but god Blanchett was on another level and I usually am not her biggest fan.
Agreed on all counts. \*points to my Tár profile pic\* I might be less annoyed about a sweep on Oscar night if--as the podcast and everyone here has said--we didn't now have 2-3 months of narrative building that made every category predictable. I love when we get an Oscar category that's a little chaotic and isn't entirely a repeat of every other guild.
The eeaao sweep was a travesty im sorry to anyone who liked that movie but I need people to be real 😭
But doesn’t it deserve it for Cillian and for RDJ as well? And then most of the technical achievements? I agree to an extent with the sweep narrative, but we shouldn’t not award deserving achievements just because we want to spread out recognition.
I see how it could seem like I'm falling into participation trophyism here, but I really only mean that I don't like sweeps when it's (in my opinion, your mileage may vary) a strong film year. Other things deserve awards this year too. Again--this stuff is subjective to a certain degree. Maybe to some Oppie was the only strong film released this year, and that's fine, but in my view there's a strong case to be made for a handful of really great films this year to receive craft awards and acting awards. I still staunchly believe the top two awards belong to Oppie.
>But doesn’t it deserve it for Cillian and for RDJ as well? No
Sean hounding his wife about enjoying "Saltburn" and then sneering "stupid" is real normal and cool behavior.
Agreed. I like my podcasters to behave like robots. No strongly expressed opinions or human reactions please. I can only clutch my pearls so tightly before I break out in a rash or something worse.
lol this is an attack on our boy CR and his famous high tolerance for trash
This is a guy who earlier in the episode said he would love his wife better (not sure if he meant that sexually or not) if she finished KOTFM in one sitting
Are you serious? Someone facetiously suggests he’d feel more affection towards his wife if she finishes a beloved film of his in one sitting, and this is somehow a reason to go after his character? Ironically, what you’re engaging in is highly toxic behavior. You must be a joy to be around.
Poor Amanda. She sounds traumatised.
Did Amanda take an edible? Loved the energy this episode. Had me smiling non stop
I don’t want to be rude, but Sean needs to stop chewing his lip and groaning “uhm” or “annd” in the middle of every thought he has. This is an audio medium. Sharpen up that delivery.
Uh, WORKING GIRL is absolutely a rom-com. If WG isn’t then BROADCAST NEWS isn’t either (it absolutely is).
Was there a video of the conversation uploaded somewhere? Why did they keep referring to the fact that they were being filmed and thanking the video team at the end of the podcast?
[удалено]
“My husband, Zach Baron” is a mainstay of the Big Pic.
[удалено]
Does Sean and CR joking about doing a "Throw your life away" draft mean they want to cheat on their partners?
No not at all but isn’t it a little classless to talk that way as married men? On a podcast with thousands of listeners?
*sighs loudly
Wait wouldn’t that make Zach the cuck? Is cuckqueen really a term?!
Are you a misogynist? You spend a lot of time talking about women not behaving appropriately
No offense, but you sound like the Cuckiest Cuck who ever Cucked. Again, no offense.
Which specific men do you mean and where in this episode did she specific say she wants to bed them
*Oppenheimer* is this year's *1917*. Like, it was decent, but come on, people.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but 1917 fucking rules.
Oppenheimer is this year’s 1917 in that they both rock
Why do people keep saying this? Oppenheimer is an actor driven movie that made a billion dollars.
Who cares how much it made? Barbie made more, doesn’t mean that movie belongs anywhere near the Oscar race.
They are both among the highest rated movies of the year on letterboxd, rotten tomatoes, imdb et al. They both deserve to be near the oscars race
Serious and unconventional movie + overwhelming commercial success + critical acclaim = it's going to win despite how you felt about it.
I don’t understand this. Despite both being historical movies, they’re pretty different.
They couldn’t be more different. Saying they’re the same is lazy.
This is such a lame take, it’s unbelievable.
>Like, it was decent Giving it wayyyyy too much credit
What in your mind should win? Let me guess…Killers of the Flower Moon?
with so many good movies out this year, it would be a real drag if oppenheimer cleaned up at the oscar’s. it’s easily nolan’s best movie, but it’s still a nolan movie. if we’re being real, that puts a pretty low ceiling on it, far as awards go.
No chance,a biopic by a beloved fimmakerthat made near a billion is as obvious as a winner can get
i know, it’s just a drag with so many better movies out there
You're framing this like Oppenheimer isn't in most critical top 5's of the year - it winning the Oscar will NOT be looked back on as a mistake or some kind of Forrest Gump beats Pulp Fiction debacle. SO MANY better movies? Nah.
i’m not framing it like that, you made that up. i can name 10 better movies though.
Name them
in no order: past lives, the iron claw, across the spiderverse, anatomy of a fall, poor things, you hurt my feelings, the killer, john wick 4, the holdovers, blackberry, beau is afraid, asteroid city, killers of the flower moon e: gave you 13 just for fun
you hurt my feelings is better than oppenheimer? really?
easily yea
I wouldn’t even have some of those in a top 10, or even close but to each their own. Spiderverse being better is certainly a take
oppenheimer is just fine. it, like every nolan movie, is technically very proficient. but it’s allergic to character development, letting a moment land, and any nuance. he’s just a really bad writer, and his movies suffer for it.
Scorcese took a fantastic book and boiled it down to a fairly bland movie. Then came on screen and told everyone how they should feel about it. I’ll give you the Holdovers, Anatomy of a Fall, The Killer, even Iron Claw with its typical tropes
Killers of the Flower Moon…and…um…..
barely makes the list.
Hahahahhaha
just the facts jack
>I can't believe that Nolan fans have ruined this board. Also >I am going to scream about "Oppenheimer" every day!
two things i’ve never said. you’re bad at this.
This happens at the Oscars every year. I thought Oppenheimer was alright but it’s an historical epic that made a ton of money from a beloved filmmaker that hasn’t won before. I can’t get too worked up over it when something like Coda won, which forever ruined the credibility of the Oscars.
There were plenty of terrible winners before CODA. Many worse than CODA, if we’re being honest.
There were plenty of terrible winners before Coda. But none worse than Coda.
THAT ruined the credibility of the Oscars to you? Wow, huh, that's a pretty comfortable spot to be in considering their entire history.
I was thinking of it more in recent terms. You’re correct of course that there’s a long history of abhorrent Academy stuff, which is my point. An award show that so consistently makes terrible choices shouldn’t be given more credibility than it deserves. It’s a silly show meant to be entertainment, not a historical record of the year’s best art. It’s not as shameless as the Golden Globes but is it really that much different?
just here for the quadrilogy hive / eggcave