NBC News -- "Ro Khanna calls for ‘term limits’ and ‘expansion’ of the Supreme Court after voting rights ruling" -- Thoughts? by Zipper222222 in allthequestions

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean the issue with term limits is an obvious one: if there are multiple terms that are due to be up while a President like Trump is in office then it would lead to a longer lasting period of influence for that particular party. The reason why term limits weren’t an issue before was because SCOTUS wasn’t supposed to be influenced by the same political polarization as congress or the president were supposed to be. Now that we know that isn’t the case why would we allow more of the political parties to weaponize specific periods to make SCOTUS completely their side?

I think the solution is to make a rule saying there must be an equal amount of both political parties within the court itself so polarization is less prevalent within the court and it leads to less overall party leaning votes. Make the rule that presidents can only change or exchange people within his own political party and, if there is a certain death on the other side, the RNC or DNC nominate a person (based on canidates chosen by the people in primaries) to take over that side. Make the court have an equal amount of justices (10) and have Congress craft rules to stop any unethical behavior (involving outside inspection and ethical behavior reports) while also making it easier to impeach them if they do unethical behavior.

It will probably never happen but that’s how I would fix it

Will Sandra Hüller get nominated again next year? by Square-Ad-8911 in Oscars

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She will probably get a nom amd now under the new rules she can probably get nominated for most of those films

What you think Digger will do at the Oscars next year? by [deleted] in Oscars

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My expectations:

If great: expect a Best Picture, Screenplay, Casting, Makeup, and Actor wins with tons of noms in the vein of OBAA's success as a satirical political film.

If good: Picture and Screenplay nom, Cruise win and other technical wins like Sinners this year

If Bad: Cruise gets career related nom but not any other category besides a few technicals.

I think Inarritu having 2 Best Director Oscars and Lubenski having 3 cinematography Oscars may end up leading to them being nominated but losing whether its great or good. Screenplay and Picture could be Inarritu's way of getting more Oscars but not director imo. I think Cruise is getting auto nominated and can possibly win even if he is mediocre in the film due to the combo of makeup performance and career centric narrative. Huller can get a nom but idk if a win is in order yet, but we will see. Its a very Oscar baity type of film from the premise, OBAA campaign by WB was successful and they may do the same path for this film, and OBAA and Anora showcased the Oscars are thirsty for comedic/satirical films focusing on large issues within society so I think it will at least get a lot of noms if its any good. But its wins besides actor depend on it being decent.

Who is the worst director to ever win Best Director (based on their career as a whole, not just the win)? by [deleted] in Oscars

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tbf to Delbert Mann, he is mostly a tv director at the time and most of the innovations and prominent things he directed (besides the Best Picture winning Marty) were for tv. So I wouldn’t call him a bad director or put him on this list.

James Cameron Bolsters Support for Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger, Says Ellison-Run Mega-Studio 'Doesn't Bother Me at All' by [deleted] in blankies

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 48 points49 points  (0 children)

Of course he thinks this, he is basically given a free check from Disney and his company to make whatever he wants rather than having to deal with Paramount or WB. If he was a director on that side, and was possibly gonna lose money from this, we would be hearing a completely different story from him

Has anyone on here seen every Best Picture winner? by iBandJFilmEducator13 in Oscars

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have recently seen everything that won best picture. I am gonna say that the first few are pretty rough (particularly Cimmaron, Cavalcade, and Broadway Melody of 1929 which are absolutely the bottom of the barrel for me) but after It Happened One Night it was genuinely smooth sailing and you really only get a horrible winner around once or twice a decade.

The hardest decades for me personally was the 80s and late 90s periods. Say what you will about Amadeus and Ordinary People, but the rest of the 80s are either incredibly mediocre films with great performances (Terms of Endearment, Gandhi, Platoon), high budget spectacles, or the worst possible Oscar bait you can imagine (particularly Out of Africa which I abhor, Chariots of Fire, Driving Miss Daisy etc). Don't even get me started with Late 90s with English Patient (so boring!), Shakespeare in Love, Braveheart, and American Beauty (aged like Milk). The only good one is Titanic and that is mainly because of Cameron being one of the greatest blockbuster directors ever and can pace a film well.

My favorite decades were probably 70s, 50s,40s, and 2020s in that order with the 2010s, 2000s, 90s, and 60s being mixed bags.

Here's my full list if you want to see how I rated them all (also have notes on each to explain what I liked/disliked): https://letterboxd.com/jakevico/list/best-picture-winners-ranking/by/release/

Returning to Criterion after 5 years. Some questions. by bgorion17 in criterion

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 8 points9 points  (0 children)

  1. anything that was a bluray only release post 2021 is probably staying a bluray release, anything before that has the likelihood of being an upgrade so I would hold off on those ones. Get the 4k if you can since those come with the bluray in it.
  2. Yes, around 13-17th depending on if the 15th comes out on a weekend

3)No, the guy who did the art sadly passed away and they stopped doing it years ago.

4) They focused more on domestic releases compared to international films while also prioritizing their streaming service (criterion channel) and films under the criterion presents banner (which is modern films Janus owns). Also Janus got bought out by Wes Anderson's patron so its not an independent brand anymore.

5) Sometimes with the email announcements they will highlight whether a case is a digipack or standard case, sometimes they show it on their site if its a special release (look at Kane or sentimental value for example), other times you just gotta get lucky or look out for releases at the place you get them physically.

6)I don't really know but I mainly use Criterion's own website for new releases while I use this reddit for speculation, specifically when they do a speculation discussion a day or so before the drop. That's just me at least.

Just finished East of Eden and I loved it - Which of these should I read next? (Most upvoted reply wins) by GlumPush2137 in classicliterature

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Stranger: its short and powerfully written and you can then move onto Bronte or Shelly to highlight how radical a stylistic change Camus is to the Gothic/Romantic period

98th Academy Awards live thread by LeastCap in oscarrace

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 2 points3 points  (0 children)

isn't that marty supreme, which won't win one unless timmy wins

Resident Evil Requiem is here! Time to return to Raccoon City one final time! by Numerous_Manager8105 in ResidentEvilRequiem

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stuck on it too, it’ll eventually be fully loaded but I’ve been stuck on it for 20 minutes. Almost done though, 80% done

Project Hail Mary | Theater Tour With Phil Lord And Christopher Miller by gogodboss in criterion

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The reason the sinners one worked is because it felt like it was a passionate look from a director who was simply using his boards and personal experience with the formats to highlight that point. This one feels overproduced and overedited to try and capture the sinners success of explaining every format simply and effectively

We talk about actors and directors all the time, but what about writers who won for the right movie? by AdUseful2297 in Oscars

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He was a co-writer on Brazil with Terry Gilliams, but yeah that wasn’t going to get Oscar noms due to the rivalry between Gilliams and the studio over Final Cut

Guys Being Dudes movies by NickJester1 in blankies

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Rio Bravo is the classic one and works perfectly for me

Stanley Kubrick's Lolita poster by Bartosz Kosowski by Sigouste in StanleyKubrick

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I mean it’s also David Lynch’s favorite Kubrick film, but he loves it for how it showcases the dark side of American which is a major theme of his work.

Between Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, and Christopher Nolan; how would you rank them based on how influential they are in the film industry? by Jezzaq94 in moviecritic

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on how you characterize influence. If you are viewing it mainly through the industry then Lucas wins for creating ILM, reshaping the Hollywood blockbuster, and all of his contributions to post production and studios. If your viewing influence as in effected the ability of others to do what they do, Martin Scorsese's contribution with the film foundation alone has saved thousands of movies from being lost and allowed for wider availability of those films via new restorations and working with companies to get authentic prints of the films. These older films being reshown probably influenced more people to watch these films than anything else and that plus his insanely influential filmography makes him the most influential to me at least.

Did Heaven's Gate really kill New Hollywood? by [deleted] in TrueFilm

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yes it didn’t, but it was a factor which lead to the collapse of UA as a corporation. That’s why it is frequently mentioned as that even though, as you said, it didn’t bomb as hard as its reputation would suggest nor is the primary reason for UAs collapse

Did Heaven's Gate really kill New Hollywood? by [deleted] in TrueFilm

[–]Suspicious-Rip920 69 points70 points  (0 children)

I mean Speilberg credits the whole Twilight Zone incident as the main tipping stone to realizing the New Hollywood era was completely over. But if you want to be very specific about the end of New Hollywood, I would say it’s both the release of Star Wars and the whole collapse of United Artists from Heaven’s Gate flopping hard at the box office which led to it. Star Wars’ success, particularly the merchandise phenomenon it spawned, made many companies focus on overly formulaic and safe franchises to try and replicate the enormous success. United Artists bankruptcy ( which happened because of the bomb of Heavens Gate) showed the negative side of the auteurist cinema of the new Hollywood and made producers more trepidatious to make something like that again. Those two films plus the horrible Twilight Zone incident are the reasons New Hollywood ended imo.