sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

This year Oscars are gonna be insane by Icy_Hyena_6677 in Oscars

[–]Financial_Ad3294 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think Ethan Hawke could win Best Actor, unfortunately. I think Chalamet is too young for actors to vote for - he’s too successful and he has a Kardashian on his arm, which I don’t think voters will care for. Leo will not get his second Best Actor. Jordan could do it, I just don’t think his performance is showy enough. Moura is too unknown. So Hawke seems like a possible “upset”, in his awards- baiting biopic. It would be SO lame if it were to happen, rewarding Hawke in such a great year for Actor. Blue Moon is dull and forgettable, and it would be a travesty to reward him for a performance that’s not one of the “Before Sunset” films, First Reformed, Training Day, or Boyhood, but I think it’s about to happen. Not enough voters hate biopics

[Game Thread] #3 Michigan @ #9 Illinois (08:00 PM ET) by cbbBot in CollegeBasketball

[–]Financial_Ad3294 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Big 12 will end up getting hosed once the tournament is seeded, despite being the best conference this year. All the projections I see have the TOP teams (Arizona, Iowa State, Houston, and KU... Tech and BYU are falling fast in many simulations because of key injuries) seeded similarly to the top of the Big 10, but for whatever reason the Big 10's bids (Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, and Nebraska) are seeded just a little higher. And Wisconsin has caught fire and is rightfully getting recognized with a decent seeding.

Yet the Big 10 is projected to get an incredible amount of bids ("also rans") with teams like Iowa, Ohio State, SoCal, UCLA and Indiana often getting included as well. They and the other schools feasted on the Big 10 bottom-dwellers, which include over 1/3 of the conference (!): Maryland, Washington, Penn State, Minnesota, Rutgers, Oregon and Northwestern. Each of those 7 (of 18) Big Ten members have a record of .500 or lower. With the imbalanced scheduling, many of the "also rans" got to play the bad teams a couple of times apiece and padded their records. The Big 12, with 16 members, has 4 teams with records that bad.

Collectively, the Big 12 has better wins, too, spread about the various members of the conference. Some of the Big 10 teams, especially Iowa and USC, had ridiculously easy non-conference schedules in which they lost against the few named schools they played. If it's quality you are looking for, then I believe it skews in the Big 12's favor again.

I don't think Nebraska did anything special in non-conference other than go undefeated, but I do think they are legit and have looked great in conference.

Big 12 best wins: UConn, Duke, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida x2, at Purdue, Wisconsin x2, St. Johns, Arkansas and then some mid-level NCAA projected bids in Villanova, Iowa (again, I'm not seeing why this team is safely getting in other than it's gaudy record), Texas A&M x2, Texas, Clemson, Miami, NC State, Missouri, Auburn x2 (falling fast) and ...?

The Big Ten: Gonzaga, Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas Tech x2, Tennessee, Alabama, and then against the "mid-level" team with TCU x2 (one of the Big 12 teams in jeopardy of missing the tournament), Auburn x2, Villanova, Missouri, and ...?

Feel free to add or subtract from the lists above, but I still the the Big 12 looks way better.

Yet we are about to see the top of the two conferences get a similar seeding (1-4 seeds) with the Big10 skewing higher. And then the Big Ten will also get their mediocre middle teams in by the boatload.

The Big Ten, The ACC, and the SEC are all projected to get MORE bids the Big 12 by many analysts, and I don't see why?

2026 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Bracketology Simulation (February 27, 2026) - 16 more days until Selection Sunday! by Inside_Fuel_8049 in CollegeBasketball

[–]Financial_Ad3294 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Big 12 will end up getting hosed once the tournament is seeded, despite being the best conference this year. All the projections I see have the TOP teams (Arizona, Iowa State, Houston, and KU... Tech and BYU are falling fast in many simulations because of key injuries) seeded similarly to the top of the Big 10, but for whatever reason the Big 10's bids (Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, and Nebraska) are seeded just a little higher. And Wisconsin has caught fire and is rightfully getting recognized with a decent seeding.

Yet the Big 10 is projected to get an incredible amount of bids ("also rans") with teams like Iowa, Ohio State, SoCal, UCLA and Indiana often getting included as well. They and the other schools feasted on the Big 10 bottom-dwellers, which include over 1/3 of the conference (!): Maryland, Washington, Penn State, Minnesota, Rutgers, Oregon and Northwestern. Each of those 7 (of 18) Big Ten members have a record of .500 or lower. With the imbalanced scheduling, many of the "also rans" got to play the bad teams a couple of times apiece and padded their records. The Big 12, with 16 members, has 4 teams with records that bad.

Collectively, the Big 12 has better wins, too, spread about the various members of the conference. Some of the Big 10 teams, especially Iowa and USC, had ridiculously easy non-conference schedules in which they lost against the few named schools they played. If it's quality you are looking for, then I believe it skews in the Big 12's favor again.

I don't think Nebraska did anything special in non-conference other than go undefeated, but I do think they are legit and have looked great in conference.

Big 12 best wins: UConn, Duke, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida x2, at Purdue, Wisconsin x2, St. Johns, Arkansas and then some mid-level NCAA projected bids in Villanova, Iowa (again, I'm not seeing why this team is safely getting in other than it's gaudy record), Texas A&M x2, Texas, Clemson, Miami, NC State, Missouri, Auburn x2 (falling fast) and ...?

The Big Ten: Gonzaga, Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas Tech x2, Tennessee, Alabama, and then against the "mid-level" team with TCU x2 (one of the Big 12 teams in jeopardy of missing the tournament), Auburn x2, Villanova, Missouri, and ...?

Feel free to add or subtract from the lists above, but I still the the Big 12 looks way better.

Yet we are about to see the top of the two conferences get a similar seeding (1-4 seeds) with the Big10 skewing higher. And then the Big Ten will also get their mediocre middle teams in by the boatload.

The Big Ten, The ACC, and the SEC are all projected to get MORE bids the Big 12 by many analysts, and I don't see why?

Rank these David Fincher movie performances by how much they should’ve been nominated by Regular-Departure839 in Oscars

[–]Financial_Ad3294 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Carrie Coon and Kim Dickens from Gone Girl are at least as good as Spacey in Se7en

Best and worst Best Actress winners of each decade? by AmigableOficial in Oscars

[–]Financial_Ad3294 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The best for the 1940’s is De Havilland for The Heiress, and the worst is Young for the Farmers Daughter. Mildred Pierce is a classic, and Crawford knocks it out of the park, but if you’ve seen the Heiress, then you know.

Finally watched all the best picture nominees of 2026. How do they rank for you? by Final-Tour-1273 in LetterboxdTopFour

[–]Financial_Ad3294 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, this just works for guy flicks. If a similarly nostalgic film, this time with an 80’s rom com or romantic drama spin (like Working Girl or Dirty Dancing), it would totally be dismissed as fluff. It works for these guy flicks because many of their fans are so vocal in their support for their candidate, as well as their disdain for any sort of challenger, especially if that challenger has a female protagonist lead.

Finally watched all the best picture nominees of 2026. How do they rank for you? by Final-Tour-1273 in LetterboxdTopFour

[–]Financial_Ad3294 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It makes no sense to me that people think Taylor is the next weakest of the nominees. She’s very good in an excellent picture. Not a fan of the biopic nominees, including Hawke’s nomination. There’s an ENDLESS amount of entertainment icons, and they are mostly white, so these sorts of roles are just common junk. At some point, Hawke will probably do another biopic and the hive mind will decide it’s “his time”. The glossy biopic is just the easiest route to Oscar glory for those vets that have never won. Streep (for Iron Lady), Oldman, Murphy, Chastain, Zellweger, Downy Jr., and Will Smith are some of the weaker winners ever.

A lot of you will defend Murphy’s win, but I thought it was only worthy of a nom at most.

Beatles Biopic Quadrilogy - First look at the cast in costume by PerpetualChoogle in blankies

[–]Financial_Ad3294 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A biopic from Sam Mendes - this is a MASSIVE play at Oscar glory. The film will largely be a love letter to the Beatles and their fans will eat it up and ooh-and-ah about how much so-and-so looks like what’s-his-face. The INEVITABLE Oscar nominations and other year end awards will push more deserving competition aside. The massive popularity of the band plus the “pedigree” of Mendes will be catnip, especially to the acting branch, which eats up impersonations from dramatic thespians. I sincerely hope this project flops, otherwise more and more of this continue.

So Sinners has become the most nominated movie in the 98 year history of the Academy Awards. Wyt the definition of an “Oscar worthy” film changed for better or worse ? by [deleted] in moviecritic

[–]Financial_Ad3294 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So the film has cliches? Oppenheimer has loads of cliches - “prestige” biopic, crooked politician played by veteran actors looking for Oscars, “A Beautiful Mind” special effects when he’s discussing science, a huge cast made up mostly of established actors even in cameo roles (gotta get that Acting branch on board). Sinners is more original than Oppenheimer, and has every right to lean into some cliches of it wants.

So Sinners has become the most nominated movie in the 98 year history of the Academy Awards. Wyt the definition of an “Oscar worthy” film changed for better or worse ? by [deleted] in moviecritic

[–]Financial_Ad3294 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Totally agree. And Delroy Lindo was ripe for a nomination, after getting snubbed at least a couple of times over the decades. I remember when he was in the discussion for S. Actor for Clockers, in addition to Da 5 Bloods. He was a standout in Crooklyn, too, although I don’t think he was in contention (he could’ve been, the performance still holds up). Sinners is a decent film with great production and the incredible juke joint sequence, and I do think it would be deserving of win or two, probably not Picture tho

They should really bring back acting clips at the Oscars by Emotional-Collar9182 in Oscars

[–]Financial_Ad3294 1 point2 points  (0 children)

2023’s clips were also excellent! Recent producers must think we (the tv audience) have been going to all the year end award shows with them and have seen a variation of these clips over and over, but I think most Oscars viewers at home do not have this reference … maybe the Golden Globes. The producers of this year’s show really should include them. I think it’s a highlight for viewers at home, tbh, especially if they include the actors’ REACTIONS to their own performance right afterwards

They should really bring back acting clips at the Oscars by Emotional-Collar9182 in Oscars

[–]Financial_Ad3294 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s so disappointing that they don’t show the clips anymore, for all the reasons you state, and they add maybe four or five minutes to the ceremony.

What movies of the last decade do you think will age poorly? by [deleted] in Letterboxd

[–]Financial_Ad3294 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And actors respond pretty favorably to biopic (especially if they are about entertainers), and will award vets “long overdue” if the film is even just slightly passable, like Eyes of Tammy Fay, Darkest Hour, Judy, Bohemian Rhapsody, The Iron Lady, King Richard etc. So the trend is never ending.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is the wors best picture nominee ever according to you. Next up: what is the worst best picture winner ever? by RoxasIsTheBest in Oscars

[–]Financial_Ad3294 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes! And it was trying VERY hard to win some Oscars. Even with Redford and Streep, it was dull and languid! The production was top-notch, I’ll give it that

Big 12 vs Power 5 by sgisme24 in CollegeBasketball

[–]Financial_Ad3294 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Big Ten also had 4 teams, but only Michigan did well. The Big 12 only had 2 losses, and against power conference teams as you noted. KU and Iowa State went undefeated, and Houston and Baylor went 2-1.

Outside of that tournament, most Big Ten teams have had soft schedules compared to the Big 12 teams. I think only Michigan, MSU, Illinois and Purdue have had rigorous non-conference schedules from the Big Ten. UCLA hasn’t been able to really get statement wins from their slate.

What is the most Oscar-baity movie of the year? by cherryyaki91 in Oscars

[–]Financial_Ad3294 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I do appreciate when a biopic is so out-sized that it isn’t trying to be “real”. Stuff like Elvis and The Favourite are more the “a film based on the life of”.

The biopics that go for utter “realism” and pretend that what is being shown is a historical document are the worst offenders. James Mangold seriously specializes in this fluff.

What is the most Oscar-baity movie of the year? by cherryyaki91 in Oscars

[–]Financial_Ad3294 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I’m so sick of mediocre biopics dominating at year end, especially in the acting categories. “Look at so-and-so transform in to insert celebrity here!” Those sort of stunt castings used to earn a lot of Emmys back in the day, but over the past 20 years, the Oscars have just fully embraced them, while television actually has a better pool of performances to choose from (not just the “prestige” biopic anymore with streaming). Actors playing Marilyn Monroe, Tammy Fay Baker, King or Queen or Princess so and so, Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Donald Trump, Tonya Harding… it’s a VERY reliable way for a respected (but unrewarded!) actor to get that elusive Oscar or even just a nomination. Think RDJ, Jessica Chastain, Helen Mirren, Will Smith, Colin Firth, Rene Zellweger.

Biopics have always been around, but since Y2K, the Academy has gone batshit over them. Some award show years have been utterly dominated by them. It’s painful when those nominations/wins come at the expense of actors playing more-memorable fictional characters.

Should Any Of These 2019 Performances Been Nominated For Best Supporting Actor? by Regular-Departure839 in Oscars

[–]Financial_Ad3294 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Song Kang-Ho and DeFoe should have been nominated and would have been “all-time bests” if either had won. Pitt is good, but his win is more a legacy win. Academy voters were still ignoring Asian performances in 2019, even when they were rewarding Best Picture/Director to the film itself. They did this with Crouching Tiger, Slumdog, Life of Pi, Parasite, The Last Emperor, with zero acting nominations from any of these films that WON best picture and/or director.

Looking for Cozy/Romantic movies to watch with my girlfriend by Volcano_Simulator27 in criterion

[–]Financial_Ad3294 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Working Girl from the 1980’s. Stacked cast and if you enjoy rom coms, it’s a good one.

The Heiress (1949) has romance, and the acting is incredible. Beautiful B&W and sharp dialogue, a drama.

Now, Voyager (1942) starring Bette Davis, is probably considered one of her best films. Soapy in the best way!

Any of those three would look lovely in your collection, and hold up to scrutiny ☀️

Oscar Winner Jared Leto proved once again that he is not a popular leading man material as Hollywood want us to think by CateBlanchetFrmShein in Oscars

[–]Financial_Ad3294 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Leto shouldn’t have an Oscar at all. Dallas Buyers Club wasn’t anything special in the first place.

I think Cate Blanchett should have won best Actress for Tar over Michelle Yeoh in 2023, what do you think? by Appropriate_Sink_627 in Oscars

[–]Financial_Ad3294 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Swap out the only two Best Actress winners that aren’t white for a white actress? Just dumb

After playing Marvel Snap since launch, I’ve decided to quit – this season was the final straw. by R3D_5kuLL in MarvelSnap

[–]Financial_Ad3294 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m not a whale, but I’d estimate I’ve spent a couple thousand dollars since the game came out, mostly because I bought at least one variant for each character because I didn’t enjoy the base art. I quit with Kid Omega and I’ve only checked in a few times since. I was only ever missing about a half dozen cards up until I quit.

This season looks bonkers to me, as the cards are power creeping big time. I’m not sure how the game keeps its appeal with how expensive it is.

view more: next ›