Michelle Obama and the Oscars

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427
Michelle Obama and the Oscars

Michelle Obama Attacked For Oscars Appearance | Blog | Media Matters for America

Right-wing media are falsely suggesting that First Lady Michelle Obama's Academy Awards appearance is unprecedented, ignoring that former presidents and former First Lady Laura Bush have previously participated in the ceremony.
On Sunday, Obama made a surprise appearance via satellite at the 85th Academy Awards where she helped announce the Best Picture Oscar winner. According to a spokesman for Obama, the Academy contacted the first lady about being part of the ceremony.
Washington Post political blogger Jennifer Rubin, however, accused Obama of "feel[ing] entitled" to "intrude" on the ceremony, arguing that Obama's "celebrity appearance" made her seem "small and grasping":
[QUOTE][INDENT] It is not enough that President Obama pops up at every sporting event in the nation. Now the first lady feels entitled, with military personnel as props, to intrude on other forms of entertaining (this time for the benefit of the Hollywood glitterati who so lavishly paid for her husband's election). I'm sure the left will holler that once again conservatives are being grouchy and have it in for the Obamas. Seriously, if they really had their president's interests at heart, they'd steer away from encouraging these celebrity appearances. It makes both the president and the first lady seem small and grasping. In this case, it was just downright weird.

[/INDENT]

Fox News Radio reporter Todd Starnes likewise wrote on his Twitter feed that Obama "probably felt like she was entitled to upstage" the Oscars and accused the first lady of making the ceremony about her. Breitbart.com called her appearance "obscene, and rather frightening in what it suggests about how low we have fallen as a nation."
In fact, former presidents and former First Lady Laura Bush have participated in Academy Awards ceremonies. In 2002, Bush appeared at the Oscars in a taped appearance. From the Chicago Tribune:

[INDENT] The documentary history montage was put together by director Penelope Spheeris, whose remarkable "Decline of Western Civilization" rock documentaries likely have never been even close to nominated.

And the show's marvelous "What do the movies mean to you?" opening segment was done by director Errol Morris, whose groundbreaking work, from "Thin Blue Line" through "Fast, Cheap and Out of Control," has also been criminally neglected.
It was bracing to see people from Laura Bush to Jerry Brown to Mikhail Gorbachev interviewed, and mind-bending to hear film titles such as Russ Meyer's "Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill" and William Castle's "The Tingler" mentioned on usually sacrosanct Oscar airspace.
[/INDENT]

In 1981, President Reagan taped an appearance for the Oscars. From The New York Times:

[INDENT] But now that Mr. Reagan has moved on to another profession, he's been invited to appear on the Academy Awards program on March 30.

The President will remain in the White House and tape a brief greeting to the audience at the Oscar ceremonies, and his words will be televised early in the awards show.
''President Reagan was once a member of our industry and it seemed fitting for him to join us,'' said Norman Jewison, producer of this year's show.
[/INDENT]

The Times also noted that former President Franklin D. Roosevelt "spoke to an Oscar audience by radio in 1941."

[/QUOTE]

So, do you think that Michelle Obama's "appearance" at the Oscars was a bad thing? And if so, can you please explain to me why, because I sincerely don't understand why....LOL

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

It's bad because it just is!! Gosh!! Why do yo have to argue with everything you liberal tree hugging squirrel!?!!?

Wink

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

I do not care if Mrs. Obama wants to go to the Oscars. IMO, it is not something worth getting upset about one way or the other.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I really don't see it either. I think they are making a mountain out of a mole hill. She was asked to do the appearance she didn't barge in telling them she needs to be a part of it.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

Do not care at all about the Oscars, or if Michelle Obama appeared on the show

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

hahaha, I missed this "issue". I don't get the controversy. I will say I am not a huge fan of the bangs. That is unrelated Smile

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3317

You know there was something that inexplicably felt off to me about it, but I don't think its rational and I don't think it was a big deal. I guess I feel like the whole movie industry is so overblown, so superficial, so commercial that it kind of feels like a cheap moment to make an appearance for a first lady. I get that its happened before, and I don't think its something worth a lot of harsh verbal criticism....it just wasn't my thing. In the grand scheme of things...i just don't really care.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

So Kim, to make sure that I understand you, are you saying that you think it was "beneath her?"

I guess I could maybe see that if it were actually Obama (although even then I wouldn't think it was a big deal) but she's not even an elected official so I guess I see her as having even less of an obligation to only participate in very serious high brow occasions.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

Well, she used the moment to talk about supporting the arts, which I liked. I love the Oscars...I thought it was funny having her co-present (via video) with Jack Nicholson.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4103

"Potter75" wrote:

I will say I am not a huge fan of the bangs. That is unrelated Smile

Agreed, not a fan of the bangs, but otherwise I'm fine with her "appearance" at the Oscars. It isn't like she walked the red carpet and took home one of the "gift bags" that had something like $40K worth of stuff in them. She taped something which was shown live. Heck, even Reagan did that!

What really cheeses me off is that Iranian TV photoshopped her dress. Seriously, if you're going to cover a story, you either accept whatever she wears or you don't show the picture. You don't photoshop sleeves and a high neck onto it. Might as well just make up the story while you're at it.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

I didn't watch the Oscars so don't really care whether she went or not. It doesn't really surprise me since the Obama's are known for pandering to Hollywood.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I didn't watch the Oscars so don't really care whether she went or not. It doesn't really surprise me since the Obama's are known for pandering to Hollywood.

How so?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116
boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

I'm not sure how hosting a successful fundraising event in Hollywood makes one "pandering" to Hollywood. Can you explain, Gloria?

pan?der (pndr)
intr.v. pan?dered, pan?der?ing, pan?ders
1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.
2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses:

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"boilermaker" wrote:

I'm not sure how hosting a successful fundraising event in Hollywood makes one "pandering" to Hollywood. Can you explain, Gloria?

pan?der (pndr)
intr.v. pan?dered, pan?der?ing, pan?ders
1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.
2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses:

Yep fits perfectly.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Yep. As always the Republicans have NEVER had fundraisers with celebrities ever. Whatever. This was so predictable.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Jessica80" wrote:

Yep. As always the Republicans have NEVER had fundraisers with celebrities ever. Whatever. This was so predictable.

Ha Ha ya I can probably count the number of Republican Hollywood actors on on hand. Is this something new that Hollywood is Democrat? Wierd I thought everyone knew that.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

40 Celebrities Who Are Republicans.

Not all Hollywood is Democrat. Just like not all of Massachusetts isn't Democrat but we lean heavily towards the left.

Republicans have had plenty of interaction with Hollywood including fundraisers.

I just hate that even a simple fluff debate has to turn political. Why could you not just say..no I don't like that she was part of the Oscars and let it go there? Why does it always have to be a negative comment? Holy crud.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Yep fits perfectly.

I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that Obama is catering to the desires of Hollywood by allowing an actor to fundraise on his behalf?
Or that Hollywood is exploiting Obamas weaknesses by fundraising on his behalf?

On that token, who do the Republicans "pander" to? Just rich old white guys? Is that any different or better?

The desperation to take a shot at Obama is just pathetic.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Ha Ha ya I can probably count the number of Republican Hollywood actors on on hand. Is this something new that Hollywood is Democrat? Wierd I thought everyone knew that.

I totally am a Republican, but I am going to turn sides for just a moment and say think of Ragan and Arnold Schwarzenegger Smile

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I totally am a Republican, but I am going to turn sides for just a moment and say think of Ragan and Arnold Schwarzenegger Smile

Ok. I said I could count them on one hand. That is not none. Just not very many.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Jessica80" wrote:

40 Celebrities Who Are Republicans.

Not all Hollywood is Democrat. Just like not all of Massachusetts isn't Democrat but we lean heavily towards the left.

Republicans have had plenty of interaction with Hollywood including fundraisers.

I just hate that even a simple fluff debate has to turn political. Why could you not just say..no I don't like that she was part of the Oscars and let it go there? Why does it always have to be a negative comment? Holy crud.

Seriously isn't the whole point of this debate that it is political? I already said I could care less if she went to the Oscars. It doesn't suprise me because the Obama's cater to Hollywood to get their money. I expressed my opinion. That is what this debate was about and thats what I did. What should I have said?

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

She didn't actually GO to the Oscars. She did a live segment from somewhere else -- maybe the White House? I don't remember.

Every politician "panders" to the people who financially support him or her. That's what politics is, isn't it?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

She didn't actually GO to the Oscars. She did a live segment from somewhere else -- maybe the White House? I don't remember.

Every politician "panders" to the people who financially support him or her. That's what politics is, isn't it?

Exactly. I don't know why that is such a big deal that I said they pander to Hollywood. Its just a fact.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I guess I don't really understand how letting someone throw you a fundraiser means that you are pandering to them.

Like, I'm a politician, and I propose/vote for legislation that specifically benefits a certain group of people (particularly one who financially supports me) then I would call that "pandering." An example of this would be that I take money from the NRA, and in turn, I vote in "NRA friendly" ways - vote against things that the NRA opposes like assault weapon bans or vote for things that the NRA supports like allowing guns on college campuses. To me, the money for votes thing is "pandering."

I don't know of any specifically "Hollywood friendly" legislation that Obama has supported, so I'm still not sure how he/they are "pandering." Gloria, can you supply some examples?

(PS - I agree that this debate is and was meant to be political. It's a debate about how Conservatives are opposed to Michelle Obama doing X" today. What else would it be but political? ;))

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I don't know of any specifically "Hollywood friendly" legislation that Obama has supported, so I'm still not sure how he/they are "pandering." Gloria, can you supply some examples?

Gay marriage. He changed his mind on that about a week before this fund raiser if I remember right.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

Well, you remember it wrong bc Joe Biden was the one who forced that conversation.

Obama: Biden 'Got Out A Little Bit Over His Skis' On Gay Marriage

Though I would hardly consider gay marriage a "Hollywood" issue.

If anything, I'm surprised they support him since you know, he wants to tax people more-- especially wealthy people.....and you know, that is Hollywood.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3317

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

So Kim, to make sure that I understand you, are you saying that you think it was "beneath her?"

I guess I could maybe see that if it were actually Obama (although even then I wouldn't think it was a big deal) but she's not even an elected official so I guess I see her as having even less of an obligation to only participate in very serious high brow occasions.

I totally forgot that I posted on this thread. Just reading it again now. I don't know if beneath her is the right term. Maybe it is, i don't know. I suppose so. Its not that I don't have a lot of respect for performing arts...but i guess overall I've lost respect for the whole Hollywood celebrity scene somewhere along the way, and I'm not entirely sure why. I can't really place my finger on what i'm feeling.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Gay marriage. He changed his mind on that about a week before this fund raiser if I remember right.

But that's not a specifically "Hollywood" issue. Over 50% of the US now supports gay marriage and 65% of Democrats support it, so I don't know how supporting gay marriage is pandering to Hollywood.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

But that's not a specifically "Hollywood" issue. Over 50% of the US now supports gay marriage and 65% of Democrats support it, so I don't know how supporting gay marriage is pandering to Hollywood.

I would disagree and so would LOTS of other people. I don't see how anyone could say the timing on that issue wasn't a little more than convenient.

The pattern of missing the wood for the trees has been consistent (it started when Obama wrote a memoir that everybody loved but nobody read) and it continues with his “endorsement” of gay marriage. The talk is all about how incredibly brave he is, not what his support actually means for gays and lesbians or why he waited until this moment to offer it. Conversely, the news that schoolboy Mitt Romney might have once said something nasty to someone who might have been gay has turned him into a rampaging homophobe. Yet again, style has eclipsed substance.

What was the gay marriage endorsement really all about? Ignore the timelines about Joe Biden being a loudmouth and follow the money instead. On Monday, the day before the North Carolina vote, the Hollywood Reporter reported that the marriage question was hurting Obama among west coast donors. “It's safe to say that the longer Obama waits on the issue, the more frustrated the [movie] community will grow with him. Perhaps it won't cost him their votes, but it might slow the flow of cash and public rally appearances. That concern doesn't end with Hollywood … One in six of Obama's so-called bundlers – people who raise money in great stacks for the president's campaign – is gay, giving the issue great importance in his fiscal game.”

So on Monday, Obama was losing dollars on the Hollywood fundraising circuit. On Wednesday, he endorsed gay marriage. On Thursday, he flew to Hollywood for a fundraiser, where 150 donors paid $40,000 each to meet the Prez at the home of George Clooney. Coincidence?

Wait, there’s more! Within minutes of the ABC interview that broke the endorsement, the Pres Tweeted “Same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Later, he issued a photo of himself making the statement with the word (you guessed it) “history” flashed everywhere. Within 90 minutes, Obama’s re-election campaign had pulled in $1 million in donations, while it quickly rolled out a new attack ad calling Romney “backwards” on gay rights. The Hollywood Reporter again: “On June 6, the president will be at the SLS hotel in Beverly Hills for an LGBT fundraiser featuring a performance by Pink. (A sellout now is virtually guaranteed.) Obama will be at another LBGT fundraiser Monday in New York, featuring a performance by Ricky Martin.”

That’s what Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage was all about – not history, not equality, but prising open George Clooney’s wallet. Note that Obama still insists that this issue should be decided at a state level and he has refused to sign a “nondiscrimination executive order.” Given the impotence of his endorsement, it really comes down to one man sharing his personal opinion about a moral matter with the rest of nation. And then making a lot of money out of it.

The gay marriage endorsement was all about Hollywood's money and Obama's ego – Telegraph Blogs

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

I probably feel differently about her appearance because I love the Oscars and consider it a prestigious event, a lot more so than some sports championship, for example. I know how ridiculous it is for rich successful glamorous people to stand up there giving each other awards, but I love every minute of it, no matter how silly.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I'm sorry, I'm still confused even after reading your article.

That concern doesn't end with Hollywood … One in six of Obama's so-called bundlers – people who raise money in great stacks for the president's campaign – is gay, giving the issue great importance in his fiscal game.”

I would say if this is true (which would be amazing: 1 in 6 is gay?!? I think it's about 3-4% of the American population is gay, but 1 of 6 people who donate a bunch of money is gay???) then that would possibly be pandering to the gay vote, but I still don't see how that automatically translates to pandering to the Hollywood vote. Are they trying to say that 1 in 6 people in Hollywood is gay?

I would say again that the majority of Democrats support gay marriage. His Democratic supporters in Hollywood (like his Democratic supporters elsewhere) were likely to applaud him coming out in support of gay marriage, because that's something that is important to many of us (again, in Hollywood and elsewhere.) It was a politically savvy move for motivating his base for sure, but I still don't see how it was specifically pandering to Hollywood. Unless you're trying to say that most people in Hollywood are gay? I don't think that's true.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I would say if this is true (which would be amazing: 1 in 6 is gay?!? I think it's about 3-4% of the American population is gay, but 1 of 6 people who donate a bunch of money is gay???) then that would possibly be pandering to the gay vote, but I still don't see how that automatically translates to pandering to the Hollywood vote. Are they trying to say that 1 in 6 people in Hollywood is gay?

I'm pretty sure it meant 1 in 6 of Obama's biggest fundraisers are gay. I didn't say that was the only reason, but I'm pretty sure money from Hollywood and other donors had a pretty big part in it.

One in six Obama’s 2012 campaign bundlers are gay, according to research conducted by the Post’s Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam. While the gay community has applauded the president on his efforts to do away with “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell’’ they have made it clear that they are growing impatient with Obama’s repeated insistence that he is “evolving’’ on the question of same sex marriage. With the Obama campaign increasingly relying on donations from the gay community in its fundraising efforts, publicly declaring his support for gay marriage was a very strategic move.

The Five Reasons Behind Obama's Statement On Gay Marriage - Forbes

Hollywood has been pushing the gay agenda for years.
Hollywood: Driving the Homosexual Agenda for 40 Years | NewsBusters

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I would say again that the majority of Democrats support gay marriage. His Democratic supporters in Hollywood (like his Democratic supporters elsewhere) were likely to applaud him coming out in support of gay marriage, because that's something that is important to many of us (again, in Hollywood and elsewhere.) It was a politically savvy move for motivating his base for sure, but I still don't see how it was specifically pandering to Hollywood. Unless you're trying to say that most people in Hollywood are gay? I don't think that's true.

I agree with Alissa in that the country is divided into areas that tend have like values. There are tons of excepts, but were I live has a high concentration of social conservatives. Hollywood has a higher concentration of people that are not social conservatives. It makes sense that Obama would concentrate his fund raising to areas where people support him and have deep pockets.

I do not agree with Obama's platform, but I do not think it is a big deal for him to have fundraisers or for his wife to show up to the Oscars. I can not for the life of me remember his name, but Angelina Jolie's father (National Treasure) has had Republican fundraisers as well. It is just how things work.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

I'm sorry, but Gloria, your article does not support your claim that he was "pandering" to Hollywood. At all.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"boilermaker" wrote:

I'm sorry, but Gloria, your article does not support your claim that he was "pandering" to Hollywood. At all.

So you are saying that he would have raised the same amount of money from his Hollywood fundraiser if he hadn't changed his stance on gay marriage a few days before?

Whats strange is even gays recognize it as pandering. Not sure why you don't think it is.

Interesting how today, both gay conservatives and leftists see through President Obama’s pander yesterday on gay marriage, coming as it did following a week when the Democrats was facing questions for his stand on gay marriage.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/05/10/will-obamas-gay-marriage-pander-hurt-him-politically/

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I'm saying that if he was pandering to anyone with that move, it was gay supporters, but not specifically "Hollywood". I don't get the gay/Hollywood connection. That is where you are losing me. Sure, there are gay people in Hollywood, but there are gay people everywhere, and straight liberals who support gay marriage everywhere. So how is supporting gay marriage a move that specifically panders to Hollywood? That's the part I'm not understanding from anything you've posted. Again, many in Hollywood are liberal, so they would be excited by his coming out in support of gay marriage, but many of us that are not in Hollywood are also liberal and were also excited by it. What makes that a move specifically aimed at Hollywood?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I'm saying that if he was pandering to anyone with that move, it was gay supporters, but not specifically "Hollywood". I don't get the gay/Hollywood connection. That is where you are losing me. Sure, there are gay people in Hollywood, but there are gay people everywhere, and straight liberals who support gay marriage everywhere. So how is supporting gay marriage a move that specifically panders to Hollywood? That's the part I'm not understanding from anything you've posted. Again, many in Hollywood are liberal, so they would be excited by his coming out in support of gay marriage, but many of us that are not in Hollywood are also liberal and were also excited by it. What makes that a move specifically aimed at Hollywood?

There are MANY actors in Hollywood who have specifically spoken out in support of gay marriage including George Clooney and many of the people who Obama was asking for money.

http://www.examiner.com/article/celebrity-friends-brad-pitt-george-clooney-and-kevin-bacon-gay-play
Anne Hathaway, Jane Lynch urge Obama to support gay marriage - Celebrity Circuit - CBS News
Celebrities Support Obama And Gay Rights | Bossip
10 Celebrities Avoiding The Altar Until Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal / Queerty
Pictures - Celebrities who support gay marriage - National LGBT Relationships | Examiner.com
PageOneQ | Hollywood celebrities support gay marriage rights in ad campaign

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Just because actors in Hollywood support gay marriage doesn't mean that gay marriage is a specifically Hollywood issue.

Let me give you a different example. Let's assume that most CEOs are Conservatives. I don't know that for a fact, but let's assume. Now, let's assume that that a Republican politician came out in support of a popular sort of general conservative position, like re-instating Don't Ask Don't Tell, and this so moved some of these conservative CEOs that they donated money to that Republican. At that point, I wouldn't say that he was "pandering to CEOs" simply because they support the stance and donated money - the stance he is espousing is just a general conservative stance. In order to "pander to CEOs" I would expect the politician to do something that is specific to CEOs, like some position that stands to save or make corporations a lot of money. Simply espousing popular conservative views wouldn't be enough for me to single out "pandering to CEOs" no matter how much money they then donated to his cause.

In the same way, I can't really see how espousing liberal views is considered "pandering to Hollywood" when those views have little to do with Hollywood. I think people just say that because it sounds worse somehow, like implying that Obama wants something really superficial like getting to hang out with movie stars or something. Again, if he's pandering to anyone in that case, I would say he is pandering to the gay vote, or I would even accept "pandering to the liberal base" (although, what does that phrase even mean when said about liberals or conservatives? We elect officials to represent our interests, so I would sure hope that they would try to represent those interests faithfully most of the time...) but I just don't see why he is specifically pandering to Hollywood anymore than he is pandering to me or any of the other zillions of liberals who support gay marriage, no matter what our profession.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

Can you buy gay while shopping on Rodeo Drive? It's totes the latest fashion these days! So Hollywood!

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3317

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I probably feel differently about her appearance because I love the Oscars and consider it a prestigious event, a lot more so than some sports championship, for example. I know how ridiculous it is for rich successful glamorous people to stand up there giving each other awards, but I love every minute of it, no matter how silly.

I don't completely despise them. I love movies, i do love an excellent movie, I appreciate the art of performance, i appreciate the industry and what it provides entertainment-wise. I think i just get frustrated with how important they all seem to think they are, or at least thats the vibe they give off, even if its not true. But perhaps that is the fate of Hollywood, only because of the sheer amounts of money that goes through the industry and the amount it generates.

I watched a little of the Oscars. I like knowing who wins to some degree and I like it when it exposes me to films that i don't know about because I really don't stay on top of the movie scene day to day.