Netflix/Prime/Hulu/BritBox Binge Watching: Coronavirus Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
I watched Wish Dragon on Netflix for something light-hearted. It wants to be Disney's Aladdin but falls short. You can see the heavy influence of Robin Williams in the dragon.
 
el henry said:
I'm going to put in a plug for The Orville (yes, you need Hulu). I looooove it. The best Star Trek since Star Trek. I had never seen anything else from Seth MacFarlane, movie or TV, but this show really held my attention. Aliens, space soap operas, a ship with bright lights where you can see what's happening:D, and best of all, a respectful homage to the original. I'm anxious to know when season 3 will drop.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. I wasn't sure about it at first and sometimes the jokes are still a little too crude, but it is the straightforward science fiction I crave amidst all the dark and gloomy stuff. Season 2 is particularly good - the last couple of episodes were awesome.
 
clairecloutier said:
Emmy nominations were announced today:

variety.com

Emmys 2021: Complete Nominations List

See the nominees for the 2021 Emmy Awards.
variety.com variety.com
Click to expand...
I'm a bit confused and also annoyed at Hamilton. It was nominated for Golden Globes as a motion picture (not tv movie), however here it's up as a variety special and actors/actresses? I feel like it should be one or the other. I mean, if Hamilton can be considered a motion picture AND a TV Movie, then why can't every movie released solely on a streaming service with no theatrical release (like Borat or The United States vs Billie Holiday)? Hamilton shouldn't be treated as something special, with its own rules. According to its wikipedia, Disney + even tried to get it considered for an Oscar, but the Academy doesn't accept filmed live theatre. From the wikipedia:
Disney included Hamilton in its awards consideration campaign and reportedly submitted the film to every organization and award guild, regardless of apparent eligibility.
Click to expand...

On a different note, I love how confused Don Cheadle is about his Falcon and the Winter Soldier nomination. Speaking of Marvel TV shows, I'm kind of disappointed that the first episode of Loki missed the cut-off by about a week, because I worry the show and its performances will get lost for next year, with the season finale happening so early into the new Emmy season.
 
In the past, all stream-only films were considered "television". Hamilton is very much like every other taped musical/play that aired on PBS, Showtime, HBO, etc. where they were eligible for Emmys. A lot of films that were Oscar nominated and seemed stream only actually met the Academy requirement to be Oscar-eligible by having theatrical premiers in L.A. and New York. I'm sure the CRUD closing theaters this past year confused things though.

As for why the Golden Globes placed things where they did, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association is a mess and they needed to fill up the Comedy/Musical categories. That said, they got tons of crap for nominating Emily in Paris and here the Emmys come, which is supposed to have better tastes, and nominates that show as well. It's like Hollywood was doubling down on the show and saying stop making fun of it. Btw, the Golden Globes may not even be aired next year due to tons of issues and being on the brink of cancellation.

Speaking of tv and movie lines being blurred, I am dismayed that Small Axe received like zero nominations. It was one of the best things on television. However, some film critics and even film publications like Sight & Sound loved it so much that they put it in their FILM rankings. Some film critics gave it Best Film/Picture over Nomadland (which got runner-up from said critics groups). I was actually kind of annoyed by that because they were acting as if Small Axe was beyond television or something rather than accepting that it was actually a television production and television productions can be that good now. It was similar to what happened with the last Twin Peaks release where film critics went all gaga over it and acted like it wasn't television.

I think lines will only get more blurred. There were cases very recently where documentaries somehow received Emmy and Oscar nominations, which never happened before. It was usually one or the other:

variety.com

Emmys’ Documentary Eligibility Rule Change Hasn’t Solved Its Double-Dipping Dilemma With the Oscars (UPDATED)

Michael Schneider's Awards Circuit column points out the unfair rule allowing Oscar shortlisted but not nominated docs to submit for Emmys.
variety.com variety.com

Remember when National Geographic’s “Free Solo” won the Academy Award for documentary in 2018 and then went on to win six Emmys, including directing for a documentary/nonfiction program? Or when ESPN’s “O.J.: Made in America” did the same thing in 2016?

The loophole that allowed docs to somehow compete in both Oscars and Emmys was always a bit bizarre. It couldn’t happen in scripted, where the rules have been ironclad: If you were released theatrically first, you’re a movie; if you’re on television, you’re, well, TV.

In documentary, though, it’s often TV outlets such as HBO, PBS or Nat Geo commissioning and funding the projects to air on their networks — making them, arguably, TV projects. But if they’re screened in theaters, the Oscars can claim them too. “Why a television documentary is eligible for AMPAS’ feature awards is a question for AMPAS,” the TV Academy told me a few years ago with a touch of delicious shade.
Click to expand...

Of course, due to the pushback, the Emmys published this new rule:

Just a week after this column published in Variety, the Television Academy has responded — and instituted a new rule, effective in 2022, “Any film placed on the AMPAS viewing platform will be deemed a theatrical motion picture and thus ineligible for the Emmy competition.” That will effectively end the lingering double-dipping scenario seen this year, and written about below. Read more about it here.
 
Last edited:
AFAIK, Borat 2 had zero theatrical presence, so in theory could be eligible for Emmys by the similar means as Hamilton since its only presence was on a digital platform.

I just get annoyed with all the adulation that Hamilton gets. IMO it's almost as though it's seen as its own separate entity, where it can do whatever it wants. (I also personally find it incredibly overrated as a show, but that's just my opinion)
 
screech said:
AFAIK, Borat 2 had zero theatrical presence, so in theory could be eligible for Emmys by the similar means as Hamilton since its only presence was on a digital platform.

I just get annoyed with all the adulation that Hamilton gets. IMO it's almost as though it's seen as its own separate entity, where it can do whatever it wants. (I also personally find it incredibly overrated as a show, but that's just my opinion)
Click to expand...
That was most likely due to the craziness of the CRUD where the Academy decided to let things slide a bit regarding theatrical releases. They even expanded the calendar year for eligibility because of it. It seems the Academy still had eligibility requirements, which Borat 2 met.

Although the “Borat” sequel was shot during the pandemic and never had a conventional theatrical release planned, it will meet the Academy’s standards for Oscar contenders this year through one of its more recent loopholes. Amazon is qualifying “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm” via drive-ins and putting it on the Academy Screening Room within 60 days; the awards team has been waiting to track reaction before getting to full campaign mode.
Click to expand...

As for Hamilton, I mean I get annoyance with something that's well-received but you personally don't like it. Believe me, there are tons of things people love that I dislike and I think everybody can relate to that. However, I don't think that has anything to do with whether it's treated like it's own "special entity". I don't believe it has been treated that specially considering everything. I personally hate The Queen's Gambit but I'm not going to argue about its eligibility.

It was not wrong to be nominated for an Emmy in terms of eligibility criteria. IMO, the Globes were wrong to put it in the movie category just to fill up their Comedy/Musical categories, but they are a separate entity from the Television and Film Academies and can do what they want with their own award show. Remember that at the SAG awards, Hamilton was also nominated in the television categories too. The annoying thing was Disney's strategy in just submitting it everywhere but a lot of studios are obnoxious when it comes to award campaigning.

It's not like Hamilton got to double dip (and if it did it wasn't that special considering the fact that some documentaries did double dip before the Television Academy closed the loophole). The Academy put its foot down because they never rewarded taped live performances before and weren't going to start. So no Oscar nominations for it. The Emmys, otoh, have a rich history of nominating filmed live plays/musicals/concerts, so Hamilton is following that history.

Also, every official guild award categorized it in television categories, not film categories. The NAACP awards categorized it with television, not film. That makes sense because taped live performances have often been considered television (if it was streamed or aired on TV obviously). Not quite special treatment. In other words, other than the Globe putting it in the movie category (and the Satellite awards which nobody pays much attention to), it's not as if Hamilton was nominated at both the Oscars and the Emmys (the way some documentaries were in the past before the Television Academy put their foot down). So, I don't think it really got special treatment.

Speaking of the Golden Globes, they've have had many other issues (like how studios wine and dine members so movies blurring the lines between drama and comedy can be submitted in the 'easier' category or the more 'serious' category to boast their contenders' future award chances at Oscar. That's why they've been sort of a joke of the industry for decades.

IMO, category fraud with leading performances being put in supporting categories is a much more egregious problem and has been happening since the Oscars invented the supporting categories.
 
Last edited:
@VGThuy thank you for the explanation and response. It does make sense - the Globes do like to live by their own rules.

I do kind of hope that, as talented as they are, the Hamilton actors don't win the Emmys acting awards for doing something they've done hundreds of times, compared to actors who are nominated for an actual Tv show/movie/special.
 
I will say that the actors did have to adapt to different blocking and for the cameras for these particular performances and every actor will tell you that when it comes to live theatre, every performance is different no matter how many times one performs the role before.
 
mpal2 said:
I'm watching Fatherhood on Netflix. I really wish there were more movies like this around that emphasize the negative messages sent to single fathers just because they aren't women. There is a constant theme of him doubting his parenting abilities because other people kept telling him he couldn't do it by himself. Parents have enough worry about making the right decisions without receiving that much negative input. There is a lot of discussion about the negative effects of gender roles and women but not enough about how men are actively discouraged from taking on the roles that society associates with women. They aren't the only ones that can be caregivers and shouldn't be the only ones. We can't complain about absent fathers without taking a long hard look at how much we tell them they aren't worthy or capable.
Click to expand...
I'm really late with this but I met Matt through his blog when Liz just died. What he wrote was honest, raw. It was amazing how Maddie kept thriving. I especially loved it when he took Maddie to all the different places around the world. To see Maddie standing at the exact same spots her Mom stood was incredible. I'm so happy Matt and Maddie and have a new family.
 
Last edited:
Enjoying Schmigadoon, which is like Pleasantville except the protagonists are stuck in a 50s musical. It doesn’t have the over the top campiness as Galavant, but it’s still a fun parody of the genre. And you can’t go wrong with the cast: Kristin Chenoweth, Alan Cumming, Aaron Tveit, Jane Krakowski, plus Keegan Michael Key and Cecily Strong as the protagonists.
 
Yehudi said:
Enjoying Schmigadoon, which is like Pleasantville except the protagonists are stuck in a 50s musical. It doesn’t have the over the top campiness as Galavant, but it’s still a fun parody of the genre. And you can’t go wrong with the cast: Kristin Chenoweth, Alan Cumming, Aaron Tveit, Jane Krakowski, plus Keegan Michael Key and Cecily Strong as the protagonists.
Click to expand...
I loved Pleasantville because it was goofy and fun but underneath it was serious and moving. Thanks for the heads up on Schmigadoon.

I saw the trailer for “This Changes Everything” and it interested me. The film is so much better than the trailer and gives us verifiable facts about the history of women and minorities in Hollywood. There are so many heroes (heroines?) in this film. Plus two fantastic songs…one by MILCK during the Women’s March and a beautiful Andra Day tune for the credits.
 
My husband and I have been watching The Nevers and I have mixed feelings about it. It has Josh Whedon's stamp all over and I'm having trouble ignoring that. Plus it makes it seem more formulistic. I definitely am getting Firefly vibes from it. Also
I freaking hate time travel except if the world-building is full of ridiculous stuff anyway like the MCU and even then sometimes it grates.
 
Bunny Hop said:
In what way? Firefly is the only Joss Whedon I can watch (apart from the Buffy movie, which he disowned). I gave up on The Nevers part way through episode 2.
Click to expand...
A lot of the characters and their interactions seem the same. A motley group is thrown together by circumstances and slowly reveal their tortured pasts.

The last episode, in particular, had all of his trademarks such as
a dystopian future where people are using a made-up slang and you can't figure out what is going on at first (or really at all)
 
I love Rutherford Falls on Peacock. The showrunner and a majority of the writing staff are Native American. It's funny and engaging. There are a ton of Native American cultural references (when Reagan made the crack about the language program and Head Start getting all the money, I busted up), but I think people who don't get them will still enjoy the show.

Also, Resident Alien.

Also, Animiki See Distribution just put a whole bunch of their content on YouTube, including the full runs of Cashing In, a soap opera set in a First Nations casino, and Hard Rock Medical.
 
MacMadame said:
A lot of the characters and their interactions seem the same. A motley group is thrown together by circumstances and slowly reveal their tortured pasts.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, I see what you mean. Normally I love that sort of thing but I just couldn't get into any of the characters on The Nevers. It's an increasing problem I have with a lot of TV shows. I don't know if it's me or the way they are written.
 
I've been watching The Good Wife on Paramount+ as a recommendation from a friend, and although the premise is really good and I'm into it, I have to say it's clear the entire CBS procedural format/formula hinders the show entirely. Not only do almost every episode follows the procedural formula (how many times does Alicia, Will, Diane...maybe, and Kalinda have to dig themselves out of traps opposing counsel sets up and find themselves in unknown legal territory?). The worst part is that storylines that rev up and seem interesting at first end super abruptly (what was the point of setting up Matthew Perry's character for instance?) while other things get drawn out much longer than necessary past the point of none one cares anymore.

The show also doesn't have much character/emotional exploration and depth. I hate it when shows aren't subtle or nuanced with it, and I don't need to be spoon fed things, but there's a difference between subtlety and shallowness. Characters are pretty black/white and any added layers to them are very short-lived or don't matter because they forget any "growth" or major trauma that happens to them.

I also think Christine Baranski's character is unevenly, inconsistently written and all she ever does in the show is remind the audience that she's a neo-liberal second wave feminist but all her storylines revolve around men (conservative men) and compromising herself. It may have been an interesting premise but it got boring fast. Also, Alan Cumming's character is so outlandishly misplaced and cartoonish that I never enjoy him when he's on the screen. I hope they're written better on The Good Fight.

Also, if any law firm really ran the way Baranksi and Josh Charles' and others ran it, it would have been internally destroyed and dissolved way long ago, 2008 legal economy bursting and bankrupting or no. Way too much backbiting and betrayals and yet they want us to believe these people care about each other?

That said, I am supremely impressed with the way the show tackled on very novel and at-the-time cutting edge technology through its cases.
 
Last edited:
VGThuy said:
I've been watching The Good Wife on Paramount+ as a recommendation from a friend, and although the premise is really good and I'm into it, I have to say it's clear the entire CBS procedural format/formula hinders the show entirely. Not only do almost every episode follows the procedural formula (how many times does Alicia, Will, Diane...maybe, and Kalinda have to dig themselves out of traps opposing counsel sets up and find themselves in unknown legal territory?). The worst part is that storylines that rev up and seem interesting at first end super abruptly (what was the point of setting up Matthew Perry's character for instance?) while other things get drawn out much longer than necessary past the point of none one cares anymore.

The show also doesn't have much character/emotional exploration and depth. I hate it when shows aren't subtle or nuanced with it, and I don't need to be spoon fed things, but there's a difference between subtlety and shallowness. Characters are pretty black/white and any added layers to them are very short-lived or don't matter because they forget any "growth" or major trauma that happens to them.

I also think Christine Baranski's character is unevenly, inconsistently written and all she ever does in the show is remind the audience that she's a neo-liberal second wave feminist but all her storylines revolve around men (conservative men) and compromising herself. It may have been an interesting premise but it got boring fast. Also, Alan Cumming's character is so outlandishly misplaced and cartoonish that I never enjoy him when he's on the screen. I hope they're written better on The Good Fight.

Also, if any law firm really ran the way Baranksi and Josh Charles' and others ran it, it would have been internally destroyed and dissolved way long ago, 2008 legal economy bursting and bankrupting or no. Way too much backbiting and betrayals and yet they want us to believe these people care about each other?

That said, I am supremely impressed with the way the show tackled on very novel and at-the-time cutting edge technology through its cases.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Worst. Documentary. Ever.

:P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)

Similar threads

TAHbKA
Simonenko's interview with Aliev
Replies
2
Views
2K
barbk
B
TAHbKA
Konov's interview with Zhulin
Replies
17
Views
7K
kwanfan1818
kwanfan1818
TAHbKA
Vaytsekhovskaya's interview with Vasiliev
Replies
11
Views
4K
skylark
S
TAHbKA
Samokhvalov's interview with Scherbakova
Replies
5
Views
4K
Perky Shae Lynn
Perky Shae Lynn
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information