vox--2020-01-27--Ford v Ferrari feels like a classic Oscar movie. Can it win Best Picture?

Every year , between five and 10 movies compete for the Oscars ’ Best Picture trophy .
It ’ s the most prestigious award that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences gives out every year , announced right at the end of the ceremony .
And there aren ’ t any set rules about what constitutes a “ best ” picture .
It ’ s the movie — for better or worse , depending on the year — that Hollywood designates as its standard-bearer for the current moment .
And so , the film that wins Best Picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s view of its accomplishments in the present and its aspirations for the future .
Each year ’ s nomination slate roughly approximates the movies the industry thinks showcase its greatest achievements from the past 12 months .
And one thing that ’ s definitely true about the nine Best Picture nominees from 2019 is that , in tone and theme , they ’ re all over the place .
The most-nominated film overall is also one of the year ’ s most successful commercially , and one of its most controversial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached the milestone of becoming that country ’ s first Best Picture and Best International Feature nominee .
There are three historical dramas : one set during World War I , one that centers on a 1966 car race , and one that co-stars an imaginary Hitler .
There ’ s a quietly funny drama about love and divorce and a revisionist history of Hollywood in the summer of 1969 .
The world ’ s arguably most influential living auteur made a gangster epic with eternity on its mind .
And a critically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the group .
In the runup to the Oscars on February 9 , the Vox staff is looking at each of the nine Best Picture nominees in turn .
What makes this film appealing to Academy voters ?
What makes it emblematic of the year ?
And should it win ?
Below , Vox critic at large Emily VanDerWerff , Vox video creative director Joe Posner , and film critic Alissa Wilkinson talk about Ford v Ferrari , the real-life story of two men racing against both their biggest competitor and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me a while to get around to seeing Ford v Ferrari , not because I didn ’ t have faith in it — after Logan , I ’ m genuinely interested in everything director James Mangold comes up with — but because it was sold to me as a “ dad movie , ” and I didn ’ t put it at the top of my priority list .
( Look , I love dads , but there ’ s a lot of movies . )
But when I finally got to watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a really well-crafted movie with some excellent performances ( one in particular we ’ ll get to in a bit ) and a lot going on under the , uh , hood .
I hate the “ they don ’ t make movies like this anymore ” cliché , because of course they do , but there ’ s something very old-fashioned about Ford v Ferrari that I loved .
One of you is a dad and one of you is not , though that ’ s not why I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you .
It ’ s because I know you ’ re both attentive to matters of craft and how they advance storytelling beyond mere plot — and this movie , as you both know , is very dependent on things like sound design and images to give the audience an almost visceral experience .
So before we get to the story of Ford v Ferrari , can we talk about how the story is told ?
What stood out to you ?
Joe : I ’ ll get this out of the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in here .
And I did enjoy this movie .
( Only about half as much as the Academy-spurned Hustlers and Uncut Gems , though . )
But Mangold and company made this fun — from little things like constantly referring to Henry Ford II ( played by Tracy Letts ) as “ the Deuce , ” to bigger things like putting the Deuce through some truly jaw-dropping driving , and then letting us just watch him cry for what felt like a full minute afterward .
In terms of technical craft , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to me was just how loud this movie was .
A baby sleeping downstairs means I ’ m going out to the theater less , but even at home means loud “ VROOM ” s triggered a deep fear of waking the baby .
Yet I couldn ’ t turn down the volume — the characters ’ voices have been carefully calibrated to be so quiet that the car noises were guaranteed tear through your body like a little puddle .
Kind of a rude move for an actual new parent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fun in general .
And hey , the sound mixers and editors might even win Oscars .
It ’ s nominated for both , perhaps making up for its lack of on-screen diversity with “ VROOM ” diversity ?
But what was up with the voiceover ?
This film wants me to believe that if I ’ m driving a car at over 7,000 RPMs , everything else will disappear , and I ’ ll just be a “ body , moving in space.
” Does either of you understand why a genuinely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this kind of cheesy-ass VO ?
It was like somebody was trying to write a Bruce Springsteen song for the movie , but only went like 33 percent of the way there .
Emily : My partner and I have a semi-regular movie night with some friends , and the one man in our little quartet kept insisting that we needed to watch this movie for one of those get-togethers .
He ’ d seen it in theaters and thought we would enjoy it .
So , dutifully , we loaded it up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blast .
( Yes , there ’ s no G at the end of that word ! )
Maybe the chief reason to watch this movie is the race sequences , which blaze by with a muted intensity that feels strangely classicist at this point in cinematic history .
It wasn ’ t difficult for me to imagine , say , Tony Scott or Ron Howard having made this in the mid- ’ 90s and winning a bunch of Oscars for it , because the film ’ s high-speed races would have felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s weirdly quaint , a great reminder of what a dad movie has become in an era when a lot of dads are Gen Xers .
But the other selling point of Ford v Ferrari , as far as I ’ m concerned , is Christian Bale .
He ’ s just magnificent as Ken Miles , a man who approaches the planet as a thing he could get to spin at more revolutions per minute in order to transcend himself and ... something something something something .
( You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this movie sort of assumes that what you most want to do in life is drive a car really fast .
Maybe that ’ s true . )
He anchors the movie in such a way that when this film takes a full turn toward “ he was taken too soon ” in its last 15 minutes , Ken ’ s ( historical ) death in a crash kind of robs the movie of its momentum in a way it never really earns .
But still !
Also , yes , Tracy Letts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How he didn ’ t get more notice for a movie in which he plays out that long series of emotions after he ’ s dragged into a car that goes extremely fast is beyond me , and in a movie full of schematic villains ( like the Italians in this movie are basically out of a Mario game ) , he offers a nuanced look at a man with a lot of power who just wants to play with his toys .
What ’ s fascinating about Ford is how it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nested within it .
( A two-hander is a movie about two characters who have a typically non-romantic relationship that drives both of them forward , usually with those two characters cast with well-known actors . )
Yes , of course , this is a movie about the relationship between Bale and Matt Damon ’ s characters , but both men ’ s relationships with Henry Ford II could be at the center of this film , too .
So could the actual rivalry between Ford and Ferrari , if you wanted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward the complexities of all of these characters that makes Ford v. Ferrari such a blast to watch .
Is it the best movie of the year ?
No .
But it ’ s absolutely the one movie among the nominees that ’ s most likely to become a cable TV staple in the years to come .
And that is its own kind of win .
Alissa : So from what I hear , the stunts ( a.k.a .
: all that driving ) are mostly real in this movie , rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are plenty of special effects , too ) .
Which brings up a question for me : Why don ’ t we have an Oscar for stunts ?
And do you think this one would win it this year , if we did ?
Emily : This would be a totally wonderful winner of a theoretical Oscar for best stunts .
And what do you know ?
Ford v. Ferrari received a SAG nomination for its stunt ensemble , the closest thing we have to an Oscar for them .
So I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Alissa .
That the movie uses mostly real stunt drivers is terrific , because it ties in to what Ford v. Ferrari is about at its core , which is this idea of old-fashioned craftsmanship .
That ’ s obviously something that appeals to Mangold , a director who never met a concept he couldn ’ t shoehorn into a Western , but it ’ s also often a core idea of the dad movie .
The theory goes that , at one time , men were men and craftsmanship was king @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apart .
People don ’ t even do their own stunts anymore !
It ’ s all created by a computer !
What happened to America ?
The key to the dad movie often is that it ’ s not really a movie about the dad watching it but about his dad .
So , for instance , the idea is that you , Joe , might watch this movie and think about your own dad , and how if he really put his mind to it , he could build a race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Le Mans .
That ’ s why a truly great dad movie appeals to people of all genders , and regardless of parenthood status : We can remember our own dads or some other dependably masculine figure who impacted our lives in a memorable way ( like when they convinced Henry Ford II to give Ken Miles another chance by taking him on a wild ride around an airport runway ) .
What Mangold complicates about the dad movie in this film is that he doesn ’ t really give us easy heroes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ titled Ford v. Ferrari , the Ferrari company and its standard bearers sort of cease to be a major concern about two-thirds of the way through the film .
Instead , we end up with a story about Ford v. Ford , as Carroll Shelby ( Damon ) and his team take on the more directly Ford-sponsored teams , then get bamboozled into giving up Ken Miles ’ s big win .
I was vaguely gutted by this bamboozlement , too .
I really was invested in Ken Miles winning , and when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross the finish line before him , I felt like he ’ d also won the victory over himself .
Instead , he ’ d been tricked by his corporate overlords .
It ’ s very Mangold to make a movie about how an iconoclast is still in the service of the Man , and this might be his ultimate statement of intent in that regard .
But I also loved all the little ways this movie immersed us in the details of Le Mans , like the diagram Miles shares with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foot race to get to the cars that opens the big race .
And there ’ s something so punishing about imagining keeping a car on the road for 24 hours , endlessly staving off disaster , in a way that Carroll knows all too well .
This isn ’ t just a movie about guys being guys , though .
It ’ s also about exactly one woman who gets to have multiple lines of dialogue , which is Ken ’ s wife , Mollie , played by Caitriona Balfe .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything , it ’ s the way Mollie is basically a throwback to a “ supportive wife ” character from one of those aforementioned ’ 90s movies .
Joe , did you find Mollie a compelling character ?
And how did you feel about the movie ’ s weird and mournful ending ?
Joe : I guess Mollie is not entirely hewing to type — she never seems too worried about Ken ’ s high-risk avocation — but yes , the character was pretty shallow .
Caitriona Balfe ’ s performance is knowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; watching her pull up a lawn chair to “ not watch ” the boys fight feels inconceivable outside the movies , for example .
But the way she looks over her sunglasses , it ’ s as if she knows too .
Maybe Mollie is pining for the crafted , larger-than-life stereotypes of Hollywood yore and has cast herself within that frame ?
Or maybe the male writer just ... didn ’ t care .
As for the ending , it clearly wasn ’ t something this movie wanted to dwell on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaves you wondering what exactly happened .
The voiceover returns , suggesting that maybe attaining high speed is worth dying for .
We hear a vague echo telling us that “ sometimes they just don ’ t get out of the car , ” but the movie never directly grapples with the specifics of what happened with the same detail afforded to the painstakingly recreated race scenes .
Well , outside the movies we have Google , and some cursory research suggests the real Ken Miles did get out of the car — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it as the car tumbled end-over-end , killing him .
There ’ s no specific evidence the crash was due to driver error , leaving the possibility that Ford or Shelby could share responsibility .
But rather than allowing Mollie , Ken ’ s son Peter , or Shelby to ask that question , the filmmakers quietly speed by it .
I wish they hadn ’ t .
I enjoyed the fun of the movie , and deeply enjoyed every moment of Tracy Letts ’ s portrayal of Henry Ford II ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it mattered .
“ He died doing what he loved , ” the film wants us to say to ourselves , hoping , as Emily says , that we ’ ll think wistfully about our dads in the process .
But Ken was only 47 , and I shudder to think how my life would be different if my dad had passed away that young .
Wouldn ’ t you want to know if your father died as a result of the Deuce ’ s pissing contest ?
Alissa : My dad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from leukemia , though , not exactly a pissing contest ) , and I thought quite a lot about him , and the gap his passing left , while I was watching the movie .
Other movies this season ( like The Irishman ) , combined with the fact that I am slowly , slowly approaching the age he was then , have made me think about how I ’ ll never know him as an old man .
And there ’ s a sense in which Ford v Ferrari expertly explores middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a searing insight into old age .
Last question : What other movies have given you the same feeling of adrenaline and emotion that watching Ford v Ferrari does ?
Another way of asking this — if someone loved Ford v Ferrari , what else would you suggest to them ?
Neither of these is an obvious choice , but I ’ d recommend Mangold ’ s last film , Logan , which takes the X-Men ’ s Wolverine character and makes him the star of a Western , and last year ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some ways is about people trying to pull off a feat just as zany as the one in this movie .
Joe : Oh gosh , I ’ m so sorry for your loss , Alissa .
To answer your question , I was surprised to be reminded of Pixar ’ s Ratatouille while watching Ford v Ferrari .
No , not Cars , which correctly didn ’ t make it anywhere close to the top of Vox ’ s Pixar rankings .
Stick with me here : I understand the technical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go faster about as clearly as how a rat could control a human via his hair .
But the films share a rambunctious search for perfection , the inevitability of compromise , and some complicated parenting .
And this is even further afield , but if you ’ re looking for another film featuring some absolutely fantastic performances , a deeply impressive commitment to a craft , some admittedly shallow characters , and a happy ending instead of a historically mandated sad one : Singin ’ in the Rain .
I lived 35 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reader , avoid my mistake if you can .
But I ’ m so excited to hear Emily ’ s suggestions — take it away !
Emily : I lost my biological father ( whom I never met ) when he was 48 , and even though I had never spoken to him , the loss was gutting all the same .
I didn ’ t expect him to suddenly be my “ dad , ” but it was nice to know he was out there in the world , being somebody ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out this suspicion was right .
His two kids have become a wonderful part of my life since I met them . )
So good dad movies often have a touch of the melancholy to them .
And because our old pal James Mangold and the father who actually raised me both love Westerns , allow me to recommend a few of those .
Unforgiven , Clint Eastwood ’ s paean for a long-gone genre and a long-gone way of life , is a must-watch for sure .
But also how about The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ugly , a movie that is a lot of fun , yet soaked through with pathos ?
Or even The Searchers , which 2020 eyes will note has plenty of racist stereotypes but is at least using them in service of poking at old Hollywood ’ s racist assumptions , and is definitely melancholic .
Or maybe we just want a “ cars go fast ” movie , in which case , Ron Howard ’ s 2013 movie Rush is a good time .
( Heck , Howard ’ s 1995 film Apollo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well . )
Yet that ’ s the thing about dad movies : They end up being ultra-personal choices , because they ’ ll always remind you , on some level , of all the fatherly folks in your own life , both known and unknown .
Ford v. Ferrari made me feel those ghosts acutely , but it also let me see some cars go really fast .
What more do you really want from a movie ?

Every year, between five and 10 movies compete for the Oscars’ Best Picture trophy. It’s the most prestigious award that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences gives out every year, announced right at the end of the ceremony. And there aren’t any set rules about what constitutes a “best” picture. It’s the movie — for better or worse, depending on the year — that Hollywood designates as its standard-bearer for the current moment.
And so, the film that wins Best Picture essentially represents the American movie industry’s view of its accomplishments in the present and its aspirations for the future.
Each year’s nomination slate roughly approximates the movies the industry thinks showcase its greatest achievements from the past 12 months. And one thing that’s definitely true about the nine Best Picture nominees from 2019 is that, in tone and theme, they’re all over the place.
The most-nominated film overall is also one of the year’s most successful commercially, and one of its most controversial. A beloved social thriller from Korea has reached the milestone of becoming that country’s first Best Picture and Best International Feature nominee. There are three historical dramas: one set during World War I, one that centers on a 1966 car race, and one that co-stars an imaginary Hitler. There’s a quietly funny drama about love and divorce and a revisionist history of Hollywood in the summer of 1969. The world’s arguably most influential living auteur made a gangster epic with eternity on its mind. And a critically acclaimed adaptation of a celebrated novel rounds out the group.
In the runup to the Oscars on February 9, the Vox staff is looking at each of the nine Best Picture nominees in turn. What makes this film appealing to Academy voters? What makes it emblematic of the year? And should it win?
Below, Vox critic at large Emily VanDerWerff, Vox video creative director Joe Posner, and film critic Alissa Wilkinson talk about Ford v Ferrari, the real-life story of two men racing against both their biggest competitor and their own demons.
Alissa: It took me a while to get around to seeing Ford v Ferrari, not because I didn’t have faith in it — after Logan, I’m genuinely interested in everything director James Mangold comes up with — but because it was sold to me as a “dad movie,” and I didn’t put it at the top of my priority list. (Look, I love dads, but there are a lot of movies.)
But when I finally got to watch it, I was pleasantly surprised. It’s a really well-crafted movie with some excellent performances (one in particular we’ll get to in a bit) and a lot going on under the, uh, hood. I hate the “they don’t make movies like this anymore” cliché, because of course they do, but there’s something very old-fashioned about Ford v Ferrari that I loved.
One of you is a dad and one of you is not, though that’s not why I wanted to talk about the movie with you. It’s because I know you’re both attentive to matters of craft and how they advance storytelling beyond mere plot — and this movie, as you both know, is very dependent on things like sound design and images to give the audience an almost visceral experience. So before we get to the story of Ford v Ferrari, can we talk about how the story is told? What stood out to you?
Joe: I’ll get this out of the way: Yes, I am the dad in here. And I did enjoy this movie. (Only about half as much as the Academy-spurned Hustlers and Uncut Gems, though.) But Mangold and company made this fun — from little things like constantly referring to Henry Ford II (played by Tracy Letts) as “the Deuce” to bigger things like putting the Deuce through some truly jaw-dropping driving, and then letting us just watch him cry for what felt like a full minute afterward.
In terms of technical craft, honestly, the first thing that stuck out to me was just how loud this movie was. A baby sleeping downstairs means I’m going out to the theater less, but even at home the loud “VROOMs” triggered my deep fear of waking the baby. Yet I couldn’t turn down the volume — the characters’ voices have been carefully calibrated to be so quiet that the car noises were guaranteed tear through your body like a little puddle. Kind of a rude move for an actual new parent, but clearly a fun approach. And hey, the sound mixers and editors might even win Oscars. It’s nominated for both, perhaps making up for its lack of onscreen diversity with “VROOM” diversity?
But what was up with the voiceover? This film wants me to believe that if I’m driving a car at more than 7,000 RPMs, everything else will disappear, and I’ll just be a “body, moving in space.” Does either of you understand why a genuinely fun movie like this one would have this kind of cheesy-ass VO? It was like somebody was trying to write a Bruce Springsteen song for the movie but only went like 33 percent of the way there.
Emily: My partner and I have a semi-regular movie night with some friends, and the one man in our little quartet kept insisting that we needed to watch this movie for one of those get-togethers. He’d seen it in theaters and thought we would enjoy it. So, dutifully, we loaded it up — and we had a fuckin’ blast. (Yes, there’s no G at the end of that word!)
Maybe the chief reason to watch this movie is the race sequences, which blaze by with a muted intensity that feels strangely classicist at this point in cinematic history. It wasn’t difficult for me to imagine, say, Tony Scott or Ron Howard having made this in the mid-’90s and winning a bunch of Oscars for it, because the film’s high-speed races would have felt so groundbreaking at the time. Now, it’s weirdly quaint, a great reminder of what a dad movie has become in an era when a lot of dads are Gen Xers.
But the other selling point of Ford v Ferrari, as far as I’m concerned, is Christian Bale. He’s just magnificent as Ken Miles, a man who approaches the planet as a thing he could get to spin at more revolutions per minute in order to transcend himself and ... something something something something. (You’re right, Joe, that this movie sort of assumes that what you most want to do in life is drive a car really fast. Maybe that’s true.) He anchors the movie in such a way that when this film takes a full turn toward “he was taken too soon” in its last 15 minutes, Ken’s (historical) death in a crash kind of robs the movie of its momentum in a way it never really earns. But still!
Also, yes, Tracy Letts, our most wonderful movie dad. How he didn’t get more notice for a movie in which he plays out that long series of emotions after he’s dragged into a car that goes extremely fast is beyond me, and in a movie full of schematic villains (like the Italians in this movie are basically out of a Mario game), he offers a nuanced look at a man with a lot of power who just wants to play with his toys.
What’s fascinating about Ford is how it’s composed of maybe 15 different two-handers nested within it. (A two-hander is a movie about two characters who have a typically non-romantic relationship that drives both of them forward, usually with those two characters cast with well-known actors.) Yes, of course, this is a movie about the relationship between Bale’s and Matt Damon’s characters, but both men’s relationships with Henry Ford II could be at the center of this film, too. So could the actual rivalry between Ford and Ferrari, if you wanted.
It’s that willingness to feint toward the complexities of all of these characters that makes Ford v Ferrari such a blast to watch. Is it the best movie of the year? No. But it’s absolutely the one movie among the nominees that’s most likely to become a cable TV staple in the years to come. And that is its own kind of win.
Alissa: So from what I hear, the stunts (a.k.a. all that driving) are mostly real in this movie, rather than CGI’d (though there are plenty of special effects, too). Which brings up a question for me: Why don’t we have an Oscar for stunts? And do you think this one would win it this year, if we did?
Emily: This would be a totally wonderful winner of a theoretical Oscar for best stunts. And what do you know? Ford v Ferrari received a SAG nomination for its stunt ensemble, the closest thing we have to an Oscar for them. So I think you’re onto something here, Alissa.
That the movie uses mostly real stunt drivers is terrific, because it ties into what Ford v Ferrari is about at its core, which is this idea of old-fashioned craftsmanship. That’s obviously something that appeals to Mangold, a director who never met a concept he couldn’t shoehorn into a Western, but it’s also often a core idea of the dad movie. The theory goes that, at one time, men were men and craftsmanship was king. Now, everything’s falling apart. People don’t even do their own stunts anymore! It’s all created by a computer! What happened to America?
The key to the dad movie often is that it’s not really a movie about the dad watching it but about his dad. So, for instance, the idea is that you, Joe, might watch this movie and think about your own dad, and how if he really put his mind to it, he could build a race car that would take out Ferrari at Le Mans. That’s why a truly great dad movie appeals to people of all genders, and regardless of parenthood status: We can remember our own dads or some other dependably masculine figure who impacted our lives in a memorable way (like when they convinced Henry Ford II to give Ken Miles another chance by taking him on a wild ride around an airport runway).
What Mangold complicates about the dad movie in this film is that he doesn’t really give us easy heroes and villains. Though the movie is titled Ford v Ferrari, the Ferrari company and its standard-bearers sort of cease to be a major concern about two-thirds of the way through the film. Instead, we end up with a story about Ford versus Ford, as Carroll Shelby (Damon) and his team take on the more directly Ford-sponsored teams, then get bamboozled into giving up Ken Miles’s big win.
I was vaguely gutted by this bamboozlement, too. I really was invested in Ken Miles winning, and when he slowed down to let his teammates cross the finish line before him, I felt like he’d also won the victory over himself. Instead, he’d been tricked by his corporate overlords. It’s very Mangold to make a movie about how an iconoclast is still in the service of the Man, and this might be his ultimate statement of intent in that regard.
But I also loved all the little ways this movie immersed us in the details of Le Mans, like the diagram Miles shares with his son of the course, or the footrace to get to the cars that opens the big race. And there’s something so punishing about imagining keeping a car on the road for 24 hours, endlessly staving off disaster, in a way that Carroll knows all too well.
This isn’t just a movie about guys being guys, though. It’s also about exactly one woman who gets to have multiple lines of dialogue, which is Ken’s wife, Mollie, played by Caitriona Balfe. If this film has been consistently criticized for anything, it’s the way Mollie is basically a throwback to a “supportive wife” character from one of those aforementioned ’90s movies. Joe, did you find Mollie a compelling character? And how did you feel about the movie’s weird and mournful ending?
Joe: I guess Mollie is not entirely hewing to type — she never seems too worried about Ken’s high-risk avocation — but yes, the character was pretty shallow. Caitriona Balfe’s performance is knowing enough to make the most of it; watching her pull up a lawn chair to “not watch” the boys fight feels inconceivable outside the movies, for example. But the way she looks over her sunglasses, it’s as if she knows too. Maybe Mollie is pining for the crafted, larger-than-life stereotypes of Hollywood yore and has cast herself within that frame? Or maybe the male writer just ... didn’t care.
As for the ending, it clearly wasn’t something this movie wanted to dwell on. The wide shot of the crash leaves you wondering what exactly happened. The voiceover returns, suggesting that maybe attaining high speed is worth dying for. We hear a vague echo telling us that “sometimes they just don’t get out of the car,” but the movie never directly grapples with the specifics of what happened with the same detail afforded to the painstakingly recreated race scenes.
Well, outside the movies we have Google, and some cursory research suggests the real Ken Miles did get out of the car — because he was violently thrown out of it as the car tumbled end over end, killing him. There’s no specific evidence the crash was due to driver error, leaving the possibility that Ford or Shelby could share responsibility.
But rather than allowing Mollie, Ken’s son Peter, or Shelby to ask that question, the filmmakers quietly speed by it.
I wish they hadn’t. I enjoyed the fun of the movie, and deeply enjoyed every moment of Tracy Letts’s portrayal of Henry Ford II’s insecurities. But the filmmakers looked away when it mattered. “He died doing what he loved,” the film wants us to say to ourselves, hoping, as Emily says, that we’ll think wistfully about our dads in the process. But Ken was only 47, and I shudder to think how my life would be different if my dad had passed away that young. Wouldn’t you want to know if your father died as a result of the Deuce’s pissing contest?
Alissa: My dad actually did pass away at 47 (from leukemia, though, not exactly a pissing contest), and I thought quite a lot about him, and the gap his passing left, while I was watching the movie. Other movies this season (like The Irishman), combined with the fact that I am slowly, slowly approaching the age he was then, have made me think about how I’ll never know him as an old man. And there’s a sense in which Ford v Ferrari expertly explores middle age, the way The Irishman is a searing insight into old age.
Last question: What other movies have given you the same feeling of adrenaline and emotion that watching Ford v Ferrari does? Another way of asking this — if someone loved Ford v Ferrari, what else would you suggest to them? Neither of these is an obvious choice, but I’d recommend Mangold’s last film, Logan, which takes the X-Men’s Wolverine character and makes him the star of a Western, and last year’s great documentary Apollo 11, which in some ways is about people trying to pull off a feat just as zany as the one in this movie.
Joe: Oh, gosh, I’m so sorry for your loss, Alissa.
To answer your question, I was surprised to be reminded of Pixar’s Ratatouille while watching Ford v Ferrari. No, not Cars, which correctly didn’t make it anywhere close to the top of Vox’s Pixar rankings. Stick with me here: I understand the technical specifics of how to make a car go faster about as clearly as how a rat could control a human via his hair. But the films share a rambunctious search for perfection, the inevitability of compromise, and some complicated parenting.
And this is even further afield, but if you’re looking for another film featuring some absolutely fantastic performances, a deeply impressive commitment to a craft, some admittedly shallow characters, and a happy ending instead of a historically mandated sad one: Singin’ in the Rain. I lived 35 years without seeing that movie. Dearest reader, avoid my mistake if you can.
But I’m so excited to hear Emily’s suggestions — take it away!
Emily: I lost my biological father (whom I never met) when he was 48, and even though I had never spoken to him, the loss was gutting all the same. I didn’t expect him to suddenly be my “dad,” but it was nice to know he was out there in the world, being somebody’s dad, probably. (Turned out this suspicion was right. His two kids have become a wonderful part of my life since I met them.)
So good dad movies often have a touch of the melancholy to them. And because our old pal James Mangold and the father who actually raised me both love Westerns, allow me to recommend a few of those. Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood’s paean for a long-gone genre and a long-gone way of life, is a must-watch for sure. But also how about The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, a movie that is a lot of fun yet soaked through with pathos? Or even The Searchers, which 2020 eyes will note has plenty of racist stereotypes but is at least using them in service of poking at old Hollywood’s racist assumptions, and is definitely melancholic.
Or maybe we just want a “cars go fast” movie, in which case, Ron Howard’s 2013 movie Rush is a good time. (Heck, Howard’s 1995 film Apollo 13 has big Ford v Ferrari energy as well.) Yet that’s the thing about dad movies: They end up being ultra-personal choices, because they’ll always remind you, on some level, of all the fatherly folks in your own life, both known and unknown. Ford v Ferrari made me feel those ghosts acutely, but it also let me see some cars go really fast. What more do you really want from a movie?
Read the Vox staff’s thoughts on all nine of the 2020 Best Picture nominees:
1917 | Ford v Ferrari | The Irishman | Jojo Rabbit | Joker | Little Women | Marriage Story | Once Upon a Time in Hollywood | Parasite


vox--2020-01-27--The controversy over a Washington Post reporter’s Kobe Bryant tweets, explained

The Washington Post has suspended a reporter who posted a series of tweets about the 2003 rape allegation against basketball star Kobe Bryant after his death on Sunday .
The incident has stirred up controversy over how we remember complicated public figures , even as circumstances around the suspension remain unclear .
Bryant , 41 , and one of his daughters , 13-year-old Gianna Maria-Onore Bryant , were among nine people killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas , California , on Sunday morning .
News of the crash prompted an outpouring of emotion across the country and the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminders of a darker part of Bryant ’ s past : namely , the rape case brought against him more than 15 years ago .
Felicia Sonmez , a reporter at the Washington Post , was one of many people to bring up the incident .
Initially , she tweeted out a link to a 2016 story from the Daily Beast about the case hours after Bryant ’ s death .
Later , she tweeted about the apparent backlash she had received over the tweet .
“ Well , THAT was eye-opening , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people had commented and emailed her with “ abuse and death threats.
” She noted that she did not write the story and that it ’ s more than three years old .
“ Any public figure is worth remembering in their totality even if that public figure is beloved and that totality unsettling , ” she continued .
Later , she went on to post a screenshot of her inbox , with one message to her reading : “ Piece of fucking shit .
Go fuck yourself .
Cunt.
” The tweets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversy around them — and Sonmez ’ s employer ’ s handling of them — has continued to swirl .
The circumstances around Sonmez ’ s suspension are murky “ National political reporter Felicia Sonmez was placed on administrative leave while the Post reviews whether tweets about the death of Kobe Bryant violated the Post newsroom ’ s social media policy .
The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues , ” said Tracy Grant , the managing editor of the Washington Post , in a statement , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the matter .
The Daily Mail was first to report Sonmez ’ s suspension on Sunday evening and suggested the decision had been made because of her tweet linking to the Daily Beast story .
However , reporter Matthew Keys later reported that it was instead tied to Sonmez ’ s inbox screenshot tweet , because it contained the full names of the people who had emailed her and could create legal issues or violate Twitter ’ s terms of service .
A Post employee told Vox ’ s Peter Kafka that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one particular Bryant-related tweet but instead because of the totality of them .
Kafka asked the Post whether the outlet is reacting to the online mob angered by Sonmez ’ s treatment of a popular sports star .
Kris Coratti , head of communications at the Post , pushed back .
“ That ’ s not at all what Tracy said , and that ’ s not at all accurate , ” Coratti said .
Sonmez did not reply to a request for comment from Vox .
However , she spoke with Erik @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critic , about the matter .
She said that on Sunday , she emailed Grant and her editor about the threats she had received after her tweets and that Grant instructed her to take the tweets down .
Sonmez told Wemple she was a “ little delayed ” in removing them because she was worried about the threats , noting that someone had posted her address online .
After a follow-up from Grant , Sonmez took the tweets down , and she said that on Sunday evening she stayed in a hotel out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was then told she was being placed on administrative leave .
Grant told her via email that the tweets didn ’ t “ pertain ” to her area of coverage , and that her social media behavior “ is making it harder for others to do their work ” at the Post .
As Wemple notes , a look at the outlet ’ s social media guidelines makes the reason Sonmez was suspended more confusing , not less : The Post encourages reporters to be informative , check facts , and take ownership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that not ignoring a matter of public record is the way to go and making survivors feel seen and heard helps Washington Post journalists rather than making our jobs harder .
We are more able to do our jobs because we ’ ve demonstrated to those survivors that we ’ re worthy of their trust , ” Sonmez told Wemple .
“ I ’ m a little confused .
If The Post is arguing that letting those survivors feel seen makes other colleagues jobs harder , I ’ d appreciate an explanation.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that represents about 1,000 of the publication ’ s employees , published an open letter to Post leadership supporting Sonmez and calling on their employer to take “ immediate steps ” to support her .
“ We have repeatedly seen colleagues — including members of management — share contentious opinions on social media platforms without sanction , ” the guild wrote .
“ But here a valued colleague is being censured for making a statement of fact .
Felicia did nothing more than what the Post ’ s own news stories have done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past allegation against Bryant.
” A spokesperson for Twitter did not reply to a request for comment on whether any of Sonmez ’ s tweets may have violated its terms of service .
There ’ s a broader discussion about how we remember complicated figures after they die Sonmez ’ s tweets did , indeed , spark an enormous backlash online .
Thousands of people responded to her Daily Beast tweet with outrage , while others came to her defense .
There is a bigger debate beyond the circumstances of Sonmez ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revered figures when they die , including the good and the bad ?
Sonmez is hardly the only person to mention the allegation against Bryant in the wake of his death .
Plenty of other people did the same and did not get the same amount of backlash ; many of the posters were men , and men often don ’ t experience the same amount of vitriol online as their female counterparts .
Also , it ’ s a tough subject : The helicopter crash is a tragic incident , Bryant leaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is a beloved figure to many .
His family is grieving , and taking to Twitter to talk about a dark part of his past can appear insensitive .
At the same time , the rape allegation against him is part of his narrative , and just because he did a lot of good things and was great at basketball doesn ’ t mean we should never speak of other aspects of his life .
That ’ s perhaps especially true for reporters .
It ’ s a question we face after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. John McCain was a war hero and a political powerhouse , but he also put Sarah Palin on the national stage , among other controversies .
Being a public figure is complicated , and those complications happen in our private lives , too .
Beyond the ins and outs of the debate around the sensitivity of tweets like Sonmez ’ s , the Post ’ s decision to suspend her is perplexing , as is its murky reasoning .
Journalists are supposed to be dedicated to the truth and shining light on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Post should recognize that — or at the very least have an explanation beyond seemingly responding to a Twitter mob .

The Washington Post suspended and then reinstated a reporter who posted a series of tweets about the 2003 rape allegation against basketball star Kobe Bryant after his death on Sunday. The incident has stirred up controversy over how we remember complicated public figures, even as circumstances around the suspension remain unclear.
Bryant, 41, and one of his daughters, 13-year-old Gianna Maria-Onore Bryant, were among nine people killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, California, on Sunday morning. News of the crash prompted an outpouring of emotion across the country and the world, but it was also met with reminders of a darker part of Bryant’s past: namely, the rape case brought against him more than 15 years ago. Felicia Sonmez, a reporter at the Washington Post, was one of many people to bring up the incident.
Initially, she tweeted out a link to a 2016 story from the Daily Beast about the case hours after Bryant’s death. Later, she tweeted about the apparent backlash she had received over the tweet. “Well, THAT was eye-opening,” she wrote, saying that 10,000 people had commented and emailed her with “abuse and death threats.” She noted that she did not write the story and that it’s more than three years old. “Any public figure is worth remembering in their totality even if that public figure is beloved and that totality unsettling,” she continued.
Later, she went on to post a screenshot of her inbox, with one message to her reading: “Piece of fucking shit. Go fuck yourself. Cunt.”
Washington Post reporter @feliciasonmez deleted her crass tweets about Kobe Bryant. But screen grabs are forever – and I took some before she deleted the tweets.
Bye, Felicia. pic.twitter.com/IvNZHkiBam — Matthew Keys (@MatthewKeysLive) January 26, 2020
The tweets have since been deleted, but the controversy around them — and Sonmez’s employer’s handling of them — has continued to swirl.
The circumstances around Sonmez’s suspension are murky
“National political reporter Felicia Sonmez was placed on administrative leave while the Post reviews whether tweets about the death of Kobe Bryant violated the Post newsroom’s social media policy. The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues,” said Tracy Grant, the managing editor of the Washington Post, in an initial statement, which did not provide a lot of clarity on the matter.
The Daily Mail was first to report Sonmez’s suspension on Sunday evening and suggested the decision had been made because of her tweet linking to the Daily Beast story. However, reporter Matthew Keys later reported that it was instead tied to Sonmez’s inbox screenshot tweet, because it contained the full names of the people who had emailed her and could create legal issues or violate Twitter’s terms of service.
A Post employee told Vox’s Peter Kafka that Sonmez wasn’t suspended because of one particular Bryant-related tweet but instead because of the totality of them.
Kafka asked the Post whether the outlet is reacting to the online mob angered by Sonmez’s treatment of a popular sports star. Kris Coratti, head of communications at the Post, pushed back. “That’s not at all what Tracy said, and that’s not at all accurate,” Coratti said.
Sonmez did not reply to a request for comment from Vox. However, she spoke with Erik Wemple, the Post’s media critic, about the matter. She said that on Sunday, she emailed Grant and her editor about the threats she had received after her tweets and that Grant instructed her to take the tweets down.
Sonmez told Wemple she was a “little delayed” in removing them because she was worried about the threats, noting that someone had posted her address online. After a follow-up from Grant, Sonmez took the tweets down, and she said that on Sunday evening she stayed in a hotel out of fear for her safety. She was then told she was being placed on administrative leave. Grant told her via email that the tweets didn’t “pertain” to her area of coverage, and that her social media behavior “is making it harder for others to do their work” at the Post.
As Wemple notes, a look at the outlet’s social media guidelines makes the reason Sonmez was suspended more confusing, not less: The Post encourages reporters to be informative, check facts, and take ownership of mistakes. “I would argue that not ignoring a matter of public record is the way to go and making survivors feel seen and heard helps Washington Post journalists rather than making our jobs harder. We are more able to do our jobs because we’ve demonstrated to those survivors that we’re worthy of their trust,” Sonmez told Wemple. “I’m a little confused. If The Post is arguing that letting those survivors feel seen makes other colleagues jobs harder, I’d appreciate an explanation.”
The Washington Post Guild, a union that represents about 1,000 of the publication’s employees, published an open letter to Post leadership supporting Sonmez and calling on their employer to take “immediate steps” to support her. “We have repeatedly seen colleagues — including members of management — share contentious opinions on social media platforms without sanction,” the guild wrote. “But here a valued colleague is being censured for making a statement of fact. Felicia did nothing more than what the Post’s own news stories have done when she shared an article about the past allegation against Bryant.”
Our statement in support of our colleague, Felicia Sonmez: https://t.co/2GDbANeybb — Washington Post Guild (@PostGuild) January 27, 2020
On Tuesday, the Post reversed course on its decision. In a new statement, Grant said that while they considered Sonmez’s tweets “ill-timed,” they didn’t violate the publication’s social media policy. She added that the Post consistently urges restraint, “which is particularly important when there are tragic deaths,” and regretted having spoken publicly about the matter.
New statement regarding Post reporter Felicia Sonmez pic.twitter.com/HBt2s5VW68 — Kristine Coratti Kelly (@kriscoratti) January 28, 2020
But the matter, it appears, still hasn’t been put to bed entirely. After her reinstatement, Sonmez released a statement saying that the Post’s readers and employees, including her, “deserve to hear directly” from Post editor Marty Baron about what happened.
I believe that Washington Post readers and employees, including myself, deserve to hear directly from @PostBaron on the newspaper’s handling of this matter. My statement on The Post’s decision tonight: pic.twitter.com/t5ULzUQhYT — Felicia Sonmez (@feliciasonmez) January 29, 2020
There’s a broader discussion about how we remember complicated figures after they die
Sonmez’s tweets did, indeed, spark an enormous backlash online. Thousands of people responded to her Daily Beast tweet with outrage, while others came to her defense.
I’m sorry but I fail to see how placing @feliciasonmez on administrative leave for posting a reported news article about the 2003 accusations against Kobe is in any way fair — Hayes Brown (@HayesBrown) January 27, 2020
Such insensitivity. @feliciasonmez and the @washingtonpost are perfect examples of why Americans find the Mainstream Media so detestable. https://t.co/h1IWZzUBS0 — toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) January 26, 2020
There is a bigger debate beyond the circumstances of Sonmez’s tweets: How do we talk about revered figures when they die, including the good and the bad?
Sonmez is hardly the only person to mention the allegation against Bryant in the wake of his death. Plenty of other people did the same and did not get the same amount of backlash; many of the posters were men, and men often don’t experience the same amount of vitriol online as their female counterparts.
Also, it’s a tough subject: The helicopter crash is a tragic incident, Bryant leaves behind his family and friends, and he is a beloved figure to many. His family is grieving, and taking to Twitter to talk about a dark part of his past can appear insensitive. At the same time, the rape allegation against him is part of his narrative, and just because he did a lot of good things and was great at basketball doesn’t mean we should never speak of other aspects of his life. That’s perhaps especially true for reporters.
It’s a question we face after the death of many public figures. Sen. John McCain was a war hero and a political powerhouse, but he also put Sarah Palin on the national stage, among other controversies. Being a public figure is complicated, and those complications happen in our private lives, too.
Beyond the ins and outs of the debate around the sensitivity of tweets like Sonmez’s, the Post’s decision to suspend her was perplexing, as was its murky reasoning and, finally, its reversal. Journalists are supposed to be dedicated to the truth and shining light on things that are sometimes ugly and painful. The Post should recognize that — or at the very least have an explanation beyond seemingly responding to a Twitter mob.
Peter Kafka contributed reporting to this story.


vox--2020-01-27--Trump’s defense claims he didn’t break the law. A congressional watchdog says he did.

President Trump ’ s defense in the impeachment trial began its second day of opening arguments on Monday — and counsel Ken Starr jumped straight into his main argument : Since Trump didn ’ t break the law , his actions don ’ t reach the threshold of an impeachable offense .
“ The articles do not charge a crime or violation of established law , ” said Starr .
“ I ’ m suggesting it ’ s a relevant factor .
I think it ’ s a weighty factor.
” Starr ’ s analysis is counter to that of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Ian Millhiser writes , a wide range of constitutional law scholars have concluded that a president does not need to commit a crime for a particular action to be considered worthy of impeachment .
But perhaps more importantly — or at least succinctly — there is ample evidence to suggest that Trump did break the law .
In fact , the Government Accountability Office , a nonpartisan internal government watchdog , determined as much just two weeks ago .
On January 16 , the GAO put out a strongly worded legal opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s decision to delay military aid to Ukraine , and determined that this move was in violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 .
As the ICA notes , a president can ’ t apply his own policy priorities to funds that have already been appropriated for a specific , different purpose by Congress .
Holding the Ukraine aid is something Trump has already confessed to — and doing so was a clear violation of the ICA , the GAO writes : Trump ’ s team has suggested the president withheld @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption and sharing costs with other nations — not coercing Kyiv into investigating the Biden family , as various witnesses testified during House Democrats ’ impeachment inquiry last fall .
However , either justification wouldn ’ t pass muster , according to the GAO .
As the Washington Post ’ s Aaron Blake writes , it ’ s worth pointing out that this opinion is not a criminal indictment — and the remedy for this violation , had Trump not released the aid eventually , would have taken the form of a lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the legal opinion ’ s conclusions , but House Democrats have signaled that it could serve as a key piece of evidence as the impeachment trial continues , Axios reports .
Other points that Democrats have cited to counter this particular argument ?
The words of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and Trump counsel Alan Dershowitz .
“ It certainly doesn ’ t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Dershowitz said in 1998 , describing the types of actions that qualify as an impeachable offense .

President Trump’s defense in the impeachment trial began its second day of opening arguments on Monday — and counsel Ken Starr jumped straight into his main argument: Since Trump didn’t break the law, his actions don’t reach the threshold of an impeachable offense.
“The articles do not charge a crime or violation of established law,” said Starr. “I’m suggesting it’s a relevant factor. I think it’s a weighty factor.”
Starr’s analysis is counter to that of many legal experts. As Vox’s Ian Millhiser writes, a wide range of constitutional law scholars have concluded that a president does not need to commit a crime for a particular action to be considered worthy of impeachment.
But perhaps more importantly — or at least succinctly — there is ample evidence to suggest that Trump did break the law. In fact, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan internal government watchdog, determined as much just two weeks ago.
On January 16, the GAO put out a strongly worded legal opinion regarding the Office of Management and Budget’s decision to delay military aid to Ukraine, and determined that this move was in violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. As the ICA notes, a president can’t apply his own policy priorities to funds that have already been appropriated for a specific, different purpose by Congress.
Holding the Ukraine aid is something Trump has already confessed to — and doing so was a clear violation of the ICA, the GAO writes:
The President has narrow, limited authority to withhold appropriations under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. OMB told GAO that it withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent “in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.” The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons.
Trump’s team has suggested the president withheld the aid because he was concerned about corruption and sharing costs with other nations — not coercing Kyiv into investigating the Biden family, as various witnesses testified during House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry last fall. However, either justification wouldn’t pass muster, according to the GAO.
As the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake writes, it’s worth pointing out that this opinion is not a criminal indictment — and the remedy for this violation, had Trump not released the aid eventually, would have taken the form of a lawsuit.
The White House has pushed back on the legal opinion’s conclusions, but House Democrats have signaled that it could serve as a key piece of evidence as the impeachment trial continues, Axios reports. Other points that Democrats have cited to counter this particular argument? The words of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and Trump counsel Alan Dershowitz.
“It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime,” Dershowitz said in 1998, describing the types of actions that qualify as an impeachable offense.


vox--2020-01-27--How Netflix is winning more with less content

There ’ s a lot less stuff on Netflix these days — and that ’ s not necessarily a bad thing .
New data shows that Netflix ’ s library is way smaller than it used to be , but the streaming service ’ s latest successes with original content suggest that its years-old strategy to move away from licensing content could finally be paying off .
Netflix is facing a new level of competition with the recent launches of streaming services like Disney+ and Apple TV+ , as well as HBO Max and Peacock coming this spring .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thing for years and beefed up its spending on original content as a result .
Now , hugely popular original shows like The Witcher and award-winning movies like The Irishman and Marriage Story serve as evidence that Netflix no longer needs a huge library to stand out from the crowd .
( Indeed , huge libraries aren ’ t always all they ’ re cracked up to be , as Amazon Prime Video , which is nearly 10 times bigger than Netflix , shows . )
Ten years ago , Netflix had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ titles in the US , according to streaming service search engine Reelgood .
Now it has 5,838 .
That ’ s down nearly 50 percent from a peak of about 11,000 titles in 2012 , according to Reelgood ’ s database , but up from 2018 , when it had a low of 5,158 .
Netflix told Recode it doesn ’ t comment on third-party numbers .
The decline is part of a long-anticipated move by Netflix away from relying on other studios ’ content and toward making its own .
Netflix is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — namely Apple , Disney , NBC , and WarnerMedia — launch and grow their own streaming services .
This influx of new services also coincides with Netflix paying higher and higher prices to license content , especially if it belongs to one of its new streaming competitors .
Netflix could also be intentionally winnowing its selection as its vast troves of viewer data show it what people actually watch and what it can afford not to license .
For years , content companies were happy to make extra money by licensing their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What they hadn ’ t anticipated was how popular those old titles could make Netflix and the titles themselves .
There ’ s even a term , the Netflix Effect , for when making shows available on Netflix would breathe new life into the show or generate more interest in the first place ( like how AMC ’ s Mad Men and Breaking Bad became much more popular after people found and binged them on the streaming site ) .
We ’ ve also seen how crazy-expensive popular series like this can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold on to Friends for just one year .
Now that Friends is exclusive to WarnerMedia , Netflix is free to spend that money on its own original content that viewers won ’ t be able to watch on another platform .
Netflix isn ’ t completely moving away from licensing content : It recently spent more than $ 500 million for the 180-episode catalog of Seinfeld .
Still , Netflix now spends more than half its cash on originals , the company ’ s Chief Financial Officer Spencer Adam Neumann said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s up from nothing less than a decade ago .
“ The future of our business is mostly originals , ” Neumann said .
Producing original series and movies is usually much more expensive than licensing old content .
That might explain why Netflix has generally dropped licensed titles faster than it gained new originals .
But Netflix is betting it will be worth it in the long run as the company will own its content library and won ’ t have to negotiate increasingly expensive licensing deals .
Meanwhile , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burgeoning fanbases with must-watch attitudes , Netflix stands to win and retain more subscribers .
Executives on the call touted the success of recent originals like The Witcher , a fantasy series watched by a record 76 million people in its first week , as well as the company ’ s recent award nominations .
“ It ’ s exciting that we end up with being the most nominated studio at the Oscars this year with our films , but the most exciting thing is those films are all incredibly popular with our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Officer Ted Sarandos said .
Netflix CEO Reed Hastings sees vying for awards as a virtuous cycle .
“ So you ’ ll see that if we further our reputation for doing well for content — sorry , for talent — by being one of the best in the world at winning awards for our talent , then the business benefit is that we will win deals that we wouldn ’ t have otherwise won for incredibly entertaining content , ” Hastings said .
Netflix ’ s subscriber base is growing in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected , thanks to the spurt of competition .
The subscriber base is growing more swiftly in international markets , where Netflix is also spending heavily on originals .
Original TV series seem to be leading the charge .
Since Netflix ’ s first original commission , House of Cards , debuted in 2013 , the company has expanded the effort tremendously and now creates series in numerous genres and languages .
Netflix has also cultivated massive franchises like Orange Is the New Black and Stranger Things .
The streaming service has even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a show that premiered on Lifetime , released its latest season as a Netflix original , and Black Mirror , which used to be a British network show , had its fifth season on Netflix .
The total number of TV titles on Netflix has quadrupled from 2010 to 2,108 currently , according to Reelgood .
Meanwhile , the number of movie titles has plummeted .
In fact , the slight resurgence in the number of overall titles on Netflix in the past two years is due exclusively to a growing number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Netflix ’ s original TV shows have arguably been more successful than its movies , though that could be changing .
In 2017 , Netflix hired producer Scott Stuber to lead its original film division and is spending hundreds of millions on big-budget films .
The company is also seeing great success in creating material that draws awards consideration .
Netflix received 24 Oscar nominations this year — more than any other media company .
This also marks the first time a streaming company led Academy Award nominations .
On top of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Irishman and Marriage Story , have been nominated for Best Picture .
Netflix also recently signed a long-term lease on Manhattan ’ s famed Paris Theater as a way to demonstrate its commitment to prestige filmmaking and qualify for even more awards .
However , as Netflix grows its library of originals , its library of non-Netflix content will continue to shrink .
That might be bad news for fans of ’ 90s TV comedies .
What really matters , though , is whether what ’ s left is worth watching .

There’s a lot less stuff on Netflix these days — and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. New data shows that Netflix’s library is way smaller than it used to be, but the streaming service’s latest successes with original content suggest that its years-old strategy to move away from licensing content could finally be paying off.
Netflix is facing a new level of competition with the recent launches of streaming services like Disney+ and Apple TV+, as well as HBO Max and Peacock coming this spring. However, Netflix has been anticipating this sort of thing for years and beefed up its spending on original content as a result. Now, hugely popular original shows like The Witcher and award-winning movies like The Irishman and Marriage Story serve as evidence that Netflix no longer needs a huge library to stand out from the crowd. (Indeed, huge libraries aren’t always all they’re cracked up to be, as Amazon Prime Video, which is nearly 10 times bigger than Netflix, shows.)
Ten years ago, Netflix had a total of 7,285 TV and movie titles in the US, according to streaming service search engine Reelgood. Now it has 5,838. That’s down nearly 50 percent from a peak of about 11,000 titles in 2012, according to Reelgood’s database, but up from 2018, when it had a low of 5,158. Netflix told Recode it doesn’t comment on third-party numbers.
The decline is part of a long-anticipated move by Netflix away from relying on other studios’ content and toward making its own. Netflix is making that transition as other content makers — namely Apple, Disney, NBC, and WarnerMedia — launch and grow their own streaming services. This influx of new services also coincides with Netflix paying higher and higher prices to license content, especially if it belongs to one of its new streaming competitors. Netflix could also be intentionally winnowing its selection as its vast troves of viewer data show it what people actually watch and what it can afford not to license.
For years, content companies were happy to make extra money by licensing their old TV shows and movies to Netflix. What they hadn’t anticipated was how popular those old titles could make Netflix and the titles themselves. There’s even a term, the Netflix Effect, for when making shows available on Netflix would breathe new life into the show or generate more interest in the first place (like how AMC’s Mad Men and Breaking Bad became much more popular after people found and binged them on the streaming site).
We’ve also seen how crazy-expensive popular series like this can be. Netflix spent $100 million to hold on to Friends for just one year. Now that Friends is exclusive to WarnerMedia, Netflix is free to spend that money on its own original content that viewers won’t be able to watch on another platform. Netflix isn’t completely moving away from licensing content: It recently spent more than $500 million for the 180-episode catalog of Seinfeld.
Still, Netflix now spends more than half its cash on originals, the company’s Chief Financial Officer Spencer Adam Neumann said on the latest earnings call. That’s up from nothing less than a decade ago.
“The future of our business is mostly originals,” Neumann said.
Producing original series and movies is usually much more expensive than licensing old content. That might explain why Netflix has generally dropped licensed titles faster than it gained new originals. But Netflix is betting it will be worth it in the long run as the company will own its content library and won’t have to negotiate increasingly expensive licensing deals. Meanwhile, if it can continue to produce shows with burgeoning fanbases with must-watch attitudes, Netflix stands to win and retain more subscribers. Executives on the call touted the success of recent originals like The Witcher, a fantasy series watched by a record 76 million people in its first week, as well as the company’s recent award nominations.
“It’s exciting that we end up with being the most nominated studio at the Oscars this year with our films, but the most exciting thing is those films are all incredibly popular with our members as well,” Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos said.
Netflix CEO Reed Hastings sees vying for awards as a virtuous cycle. “So you’ll see that if we further our reputation for doing well for content — sorry, for talent — by being one of the best in the world at winning awards for our talent, then the business benefit is that we will win deals that we wouldn’t have otherwise won for incredibly entertaining content,” Hastings said.
Netflix’s subscriber base is growing in the US — although not as fast as expected, thanks to the spurt of competition. The subscriber base is growing more swiftly in international markets, where Netflix is also spending heavily on originals.
Original TV series seem to be leading the charge. Since Netflix’s first original commission, House of Cards, debuted in 2013, the company has expanded the effort tremendously and now creates series in numerous genres and languages. Netflix has also cultivated massive franchises like Orange Is the New Black and Stranger Things. The streaming service has even picked up some transplants. Recently You, a show that premiered on Lifetime, released its latest season as a Netflix original, and Black Mirror, which used to be a British network show, had its fifth season on Netflix.
The total number of TV titles on Netflix has quadrupled from 2010 to 2,108 currently, according to Reelgood. Meanwhile, the number of movie titles has plummeted. In fact, the slight resurgence in the number of overall titles on Netflix in the past two years is due exclusively to a growing number of TV shows on the streaming service.
Netflix’s original TV shows have arguably been more successful than its movies, though that could be changing.
In 2017, Netflix hired producer Scott Stuber to lead its original film division and is spending hundreds of millions on big-budget films. The company is also seeing great success in creating material that draws awards consideration. Netflix received 24 Oscar nominations this year — more than any other media company. This also marks the first time a streaming company led Academy Award nominations. On top of that, two Netflix films, The Irishman and Marriage Story, have been nominated for Best Picture. Netflix also recently signed a long-term lease on Manhattan’s famed Paris Theater as a way to demonstrate its commitment to prestige filmmaking and qualify for even more awards.
However, as Netflix grows its library of originals, its library of non-Netflix content will continue to shrink. That might be bad news for fans of ’90s TV comedies. What really matters, though, is whether what’s left is worth watching.


vox--2020-01-27--Oprah says she wants to hear “both sides” of the American Dirt debate on appropriation

Less than a week after announcing that the highly controversial Mexican migrant novel American Dirt was the newest entry for her book club , Oprah is taking another look at her choice .
In a video posted to Instagram on Sunday , Oprah declares that after an “ outpouring of , may I say , very passionate opinions , ” it ’ s become clear that American Dirt will require a “ deeper , more substantive discussion ” than she originally planned for .
Now , rather than hold a standard discussion about the book , she plans to host @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sides ” of the issue to have an in-depth discussion about cultural appropriation and the question of “ who gets to publish what stories.
” Oprah makes a point of noting that when she first read American Dirt as a galley last summer , it “ gutted ” her .
But as criticism began to pour in about the novel , starting in December and increasing in volume over the past two weeks , she struggled to understand what about it was so offensive to so many people .
That reaction mirrors in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at large to American Dirt .
American Dirt , which is about a Mexican mother and son fleeing to the US to escape from violence , was a hugely buzzed-about book well before it published .
It sold at auction for a seven-figure advance , earned plaudits from luminaries like Stephen King , John Grisham , and Sandra Cisneros , and received glowing early trade reviews .
But over the past couple of months , many critics — especially Latinx critics and critics of color — have been increasingly scathing toward the book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who is not of Mexican descent , and her book ’ s tendency to objectify and wallow in the pain of Mexican migrants without treating its characters as full human beings .
In her review , Chicana writer Myriam Gurba called American Dirt “ trauma porn that wears a social justice fig leaf.
” Now , American Dirt has gone from being the presumed biggest novel of the season to a lightning rod for controversy — and Oprah has found herself in the middle of the conversation .
And as Oprah makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her vaunted book club , Latinx literary activists are continuing the debate , in what Brandon Loran Maxwell describes at the Daily Chela as the “ birth of the new Chicano movement.
” The immigrant youth group United We Dream has created a petition calling on Oprah to feature more Latinx and immigrant authors in her book club .
On Twitter , the writers Roberto Lovato , David Bowles , and Myriam Gurba launched the hashtag # DignidadLiteraria , which encourages action both online and in real life .
“ Our point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ but it ’ s time to pivot to something far more important than a single white woman who stole our stories : us , our voices , our power , our beauty , our histories , and our dignidad .
”

Less than a week after announcing that the highly controversial Mexican migrant novel American Dirt was the newest entry for her book club, Oprah is taking another look at her choice.
In a video posted to Instagram on Sunday, Oprah declares that after an “outpouring of, may I say, very passionate opinions,” it’s become clear that American Dirt will require a “deeper, more substantive discussion” than she originally planned for. Now, rather than hold a standard discussion about the book, she plans to host a conversation with people “from all sides” of the issue to have an in-depth discussion about cultural appropriation and the question of “who gets to publish what stories.”
Oprah makes a point of noting that when she first read American Dirt as a galley last summer, it “gutted” her. But as criticism began to pour in about the novel, starting in December and increasing in volume over the past two weeks, she struggled to understand what about it was so offensive to so many people. That reaction mirrors in miniature the response of the publishing industry at large to American Dirt.
American Dirt, which is about a Mexican mother and son fleeing to the US to escape from violence, was a hugely buzzed-about book well before it published. It sold at auction for a seven-figure advance, earned plaudits from luminaries like Stephen King, John Grisham, and Sandra Cisneros, and received glowing early trade reviews.
But over the past couple of months, many critics — especially Latinx critics and critics of color — have been increasingly scathing toward the book. Backlash has centered around its author, who is not of Mexican descent, and her book’s tendency to objectify and wallow in the pain of Mexican migrants without treating its characters as full human beings. In her review, Chicana writer Myriam Gurba called American Dirt “trauma porn that wears a social justice fig leaf.”
Now, American Dirt has gone from being the presumed biggest novel of the season to a lightning rod for controversy — and Oprah has found herself in the middle of the conversation.
And as Oprah makes her plans for the Apple TV+ version of her vaunted book club, Latinx literary activists are continuing the debate, in what Brandon Loran Maxwell describes at the Daily Chela as the “birth of the new Chicano movement.” The immigrant youth group United We Dream has created a petition calling on Oprah to feature more Latinx and immigrant authors in her book club. On Twitter, the writers Roberto Lovato, David Bowles, and Myriam Gurba launched the hashtag #DignidadLiteraria, which encourages action both online and in real life.
“Our point was made,” Lovato tweeted, “but it’s time to pivot to something far more important than a single white woman who stole our stories: us, our voices, our power, our beauty, our histories, and our dignidad.”


vox--2020-01-27--“The moral guardrails ... have dropped”: Why anti-Semitism persists

“ The bad days are back , ” wrote Batya Ungar-Sargon in the Forward in December .
“ Orthodox Jews are living through a new age of pogroms .
This week , as we celebrated the Festival of Lights , there were no fewer than 10 anti-Semitic attacks in the New York area alone.
” Anti-Semitism is occasionally called “ the oldest hatred.
” It thrums across continents and eras , finding new targets for old prejudices .
But where , exactly , does it come from ?
Why is it such a hardy weed ?
And why does this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deborah Lipstadt , a professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies at Emory University , is the author of Antisemitism : Here and Now .
On this episode of The Ezra Klein Show , we discuss the earliest forms , tropes , and rationales for anti-Semitism and the cultural reasons for their persistence .
Lipstadt explains the way right- and left-wing anti-Semitism differ and examines the charges of anti-Semitism levied against some modern politicians , like Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn .
We talk about anti-Semitism in the age of social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the convergence and divergence of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism : What distinguishes a legitimate critique of Israel from an anti-Semitism slur towards it ?
This episode airs on International Holocaust Remembrance Day .
It ’ s a reminder that the very worst days lie in living memory , in an age more similar to our own than we like to admit .
To learn more , here ’ s a lightly edited transcript of part of my conversation with Lipstadt on The Ezra Klein Show .
Let me start with the basic question .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Semitism is on the rise in America on the rise globally .
Is that true ?
I can ’ t give you a definitive answer .
But what I can tell you without doubt is that the anti-Semites feel more emboldened .
They feel freer to take violent actions , to draw a swastika on the side of the building , or to knock the hat off of some of a Jewish person walking across the street .
The moral guardrails which kept people from saying certain things and doing certain things have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wondered about is the role social and international media plays in what seems like an increased prevalence of anti-Semitic sentiment .
When there is an attack in New York , I know about it very quickly in California .
And I know much more about the debate over anti-Semitism in the UK Labour Party than I probably would have 30 years ago .
There is a way in which the globalization and digitization of media makes it easier to see something that perhaps was always there .
I agree the delivery system is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing that ’ s happened is the concept of “ lone wolf ” has become an anachronism — it no longer applies .
The murderer in Pittsburgh , the murderer in San Diego , and even the murderer in Christchurch , New Zealand , all were citing the same sources and the same modus operandi .
They may never even be sitting on the same continent , much less the same room , but they share information and details and approaches .
So that ’ s the other thing that ’ s happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back .
What is anti-Semitism ?
How do you define it ?
I would say that anti-Semitism has a template with three elements : money and finance , intellect used maliciously and nefariously , and having [ disproportionate ] power in society .
That all ties together into a conspiratorial notion of the Jew wanting to do evil — to use their financial ability and their cunning and their power against non-Jewish people .
It helps to contrast anti-Semitism with racism .
The racist looks upon the person of color as lesser — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So the racist is punching down .
The anti-Semite , who ’ s often the same person as the racist , punches up .
They look at the Jew as someone to be feared , someone with the ability to do me harm or damage .
How did this worldview take hold ?
What are the roots of it ?
Anti-Semitism is often called the longest or the oldest hatred for very good reason .
I find the roots of anti-Semitism in the New Testament depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Jews killed Jesus .
Now , of course , Jesus was a Jew .
But that ’ s a fact .
And remember we ’ re sending facts aside .
The Jews killed Jesus .
Why ?
Because he wanted to change to chase the money changers out of the temple .
So they ’ ve got your finance .
Now what did they do ?
They went to the Romans to say , “ Crucify him.
” And the Romans didn ’ t want to do it , but then the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the greatest power in the universe at the time .
And they went ahead and did it .
There you have the template .
Over the millennia , this template was used by church leaders not only to differentiate Judaism from Christianity but to demonize the Jew .
That ’ s where it has its roots , but it migrates .
It migrates to Voltaire and Karl Marx and others and eventually to the Nazi party .
That same template moves to different areas , to different places , to different outlooks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political right and the political left , and they both use the same template : money , power , intellect , cunning .
You can listen to the full episode by subscribing to The Ezra Klein Show on Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or wherever you get your podcasts .

“The bad days are back,” wrote Batya Ungar-Sargon in the Forward in December. “Orthodox Jews are living through a new age of pogroms. This week, as we celebrated the Festival of Lights, there were no fewer than 10 anti-Semitic attacks in the New York area alone.”
Anti-Semitism is occasionally called “the oldest hatred.” It thrums across continents and eras, finding new targets for old prejudices. But where, exactly, does it come from? Why is it such a hardy weed? And why does this era feel so thick with it?
Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies at Emory University, is the author of Antisemitism: Here and Now. On this episode of The Ezra Klein Show, we discuss the earliest forms, tropes, and rationales for anti-Semitism and the cultural reasons for their persistence. Lipstadt explains the way right- and left-wing anti-Semitism differ and examines the charges of anti-Semitism levied against some modern politicians, like Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn. We talk about anti-Semitism in the age of social media and rising party polarization, and about the convergence and divergence of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism: What distinguishes a legitimate critique of Israel from an anti-Semitism slur towards it?
This episode airs on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. It’s a reminder that the very worst days lie in living memory, in an age more similar to our own than we like to admit. To learn more, here’s a lightly edited transcript of part of my conversation with Lipstadt on The Ezra Klein Show.
Ezra Klein
Let me start with the basic question. The perception that many have is that anti-Semitism is on the rise in America on the rise globally. Is that true?
Deborah Lipstadt
I can’t give you a definitive answer. But what I can tell you without doubt is that the anti-Semites feel more emboldened. They feel freer to take violent actions, to draw a swastika on the side of the building, or to knock the hat off of some of a Jewish person walking across the street. The moral guardrails which kept people from saying certain things and doing certain things have dropped down.
Ezra Klein
Something I’ve wondered about is the role social and international media plays in what seems like an increased prevalence of anti-Semitic sentiment. When there is an attack in New York, I know about it very quickly in California. And I know much more about the debate over anti-Semitism in the UK Labour Party than I probably would have 30 years ago. There is a way in which the globalization and digitization of media makes it easier to see something that perhaps was always there.
Deborah Lipstadt
I agree the delivery system is much quicker. I think the other thing that’s happened is the concept of “lone wolf” has become an anachronism — it no longer applies. The murderer in Pittsburgh, the murderer in San Diego, and even the murderer in Christchurch, New Zealand, all were citing the same sources and the same modus operandi. They may never even be sitting on the same continent, much less the same room, but they share information and details and approaches. So that’s the other thing that’s happened.
Ezra Klein
Let’s take a step back. What is anti-Semitism? How do you define it?
Deborah Lipstadt
I would say that anti-Semitism has a template with three elements: money and finance, intellect used maliciously and nefariously, and having [disproportionate] power in society. That all ties together into a conspiratorial notion of the Jew wanting to do evil — to use their financial ability and their cunning and their power against non-Jewish people.
It helps to contrast anti-Semitism with racism. The racist looks upon the person of color as lesser — as not being smart or capable. So the racist is punching down. The anti-Semite, who’s often the same person as the racist, punches up. They look at the Jew as someone to be feared, someone with the ability to do me harm or damage.
Ezra Klein
How did this worldview take hold? What are the roots of it?
Deborah Lipstadt
Anti-Semitism is often called the longest or the oldest hatred for very good reason. I find the roots of anti-Semitism in the New Testament depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus. The way it’s told is that the Jews killed Jesus. Now, of course, Jesus was a Jew. But that’s a fact. And remember we’re sending facts aside.
The Jews killed Jesus. Why? Because he wanted to change to chase the money changers out of the temple. So they’ve got your finance. Now what did they do? They went to the Romans to say, “Crucify him.” And the Romans didn’t want to do it, but then the Jews pushed and managed to convince Rome, the greatest power in the universe at the time. And they went ahead and did it. There you have the template.
Over the millennia, this template was used by church leaders not only to differentiate Judaism from Christianity but to demonize the Jew. That’s where it has its roots, but it migrates. It migrates to Voltaire and Karl Marx and others and eventually to the Nazi party. That same template moves to different areas, to different places, to different outlooks. Today, you have anti-Semitism from the political right and the political left, and they both use the same template: money, power, intellect, cunning.
You can listen to the full episode by subscribing to The Ezra Klein Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.


vox--2020-01-27--Denny’s is now offering Beyond Burgers nationwide

There ’ s a rhythm to plant-based meat offerings at fast-food and casual dining restaurants .
First , a new company announces a plant-based offering with much fanfare and , often , lines out the door .
Then the new food leaves the headlines , the restaurant jealously guards its sales numbers , and it ’ s hard for outsiders to tell if the launch was a success — that is , until a nationwide expansion is announced .
That ’ s the pattern we saw with Burger King ( initial launch , national launch ) , Qdoba ( initial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taco ( first product launch , expanded product line ) and Subway ( initial launch , national launch ) .
Now Denny ’ s is joining them .
This fall , the company started offering Beyond Burgers in its Los Angeles locations .
Today , it announced that the launch was “ overwhelmingly successful ” and that it will be offering the burgers at all Denny ’ s locations nationwide and in Canada , with free Beyond Burgers on January 30 to kick off the expansion .
“ The positive response we received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meat to introduce our guests to a plant-based option , ” John Dillon , chief brand officer for Denny ’ s , said in a press release .
That ’ s corporate-speak , of course , but it ’ s corporate-speak for an important fact : Plant-based meat offerings are very well-received when they hit restaurants .
Even once the publicity has died out , the products keep selling , making the economics make sense for a nationwide expansion .
Denny ’ s is a full-service family dining restaurant with locations in 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Canada .
Plant-based meat producers can point to a growing list of companies — TGI Friday ’ s , Dunkin ’ , Carl ’ s Jr. , KFC , and McDonald ’ s offer products from Beyond Meat , and competitor Impossible Foods offers its options at Burger King , Little Caesars , and Qdoba among others .
These bets , so far , have been paying off .
Plant-based meat might help solve one of our biggest problems Plant-based meat products aren ’ t just another tasty menu item .
Proponents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the solution to a major societal problem .
All around the world , many people like the taste of meat — and demand for meat products is growing .
But conventional meat production can involve severe animal cruelty , promote antibiotic resistance and public health problems , and produce a lot of greenhouse gases .
That , Beyond Meat founder Ethan Brown has said , is what drove him to develop an alternative protein .
If plant-based meat products taste like conventional meat but are delivered to consumers in a more sustainable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will get on board .
A few years ago , that concept was met with a lot of skepticism .
Most Americans aren ’ t vegan and have no intentions to change that .
So how much market could there be for plant-based meat ?
But by now , it ’ s pretty clear that the answer is “ a substantial one.
” Lots of meat-eating Americans are still concerned about animal suffering and about the environment , and are willing to substitute plant-based burgers that increasingly taste nearly identical to meat ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thrived , and the restaurant deals just keep on coming .
Plant-based meat remains a very small share of the food sector , and its dramatic growth last year wasn ’ t enough to stop meat consumption from growing , too .
In the next few years , it will become clear whether plant-based meat is growing into a niche product or into a real replacement for the meat products it imitates .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter .
Twice a week , you ’ ll get a roundup of ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : improving public health , decreasing human and animal suffering , easing catastrophic risks , and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

There’s a rhythm to plant-based meat offerings at fast-food and casual dining restaurants. First, a new company announces a plant-based offering with much fanfare and, often, lines out the door. Then the new food leaves the headlines, the restaurant jealously guards its sales numbers, and it’s hard for outsiders to tell if the launch was a success — that is, until a nationwide expansion is announced.
That’s the pattern we saw with Burger King (initial launch, national launch), Qdoba (initial launch, national launch), Del Taco (first product launch, expanded product line) and Subway (initial launch, national launch).
Now Denny’s is joining them. This fall, the company started offering Beyond Burgers in its Los Angeles locations. Today, it announced that the launch was “overwhelmingly successful” and that it will be offering the burgers at all Denny’s locations nationwide and in Canada, with free Beyond Burgers on January 30 to kick off the expansion.
“The positive response we received validated our decision to partner with Beyond Meat to introduce our guests to a plant-based option,” John Dillon, chief brand officer for Denny’s, said in a press release.
That’s corporate-speak, of course, but it’s corporate-speak for an important fact: Plant-based meat offerings are very well-received when they hit restaurants. Even once the publicity has died out, the products keep selling, making the economics make sense for a nationwide expansion.
Denny’s is a full-service family dining restaurant with locations in 15 countries, including 1,700 in the US and Canada.
Plant-based meat producers can point to a growing list of companies — TGI Friday’s, Dunkin’, Carl’s Jr., KFC, and McDonald’s offer products from Beyond Meat, and competitor Impossible Foods offers its options at Burger King, Little Caesars, and Qdoba among others. These bets, so far, have been paying off.
Plant-based meat might help solve one of our biggest problems
Plant-based meat products aren’t just another tasty menu item. Proponents argue that they’re part of the solution to a major societal problem. All around the world, many people like the taste of meat — and demand for meat products is growing. But conventional meat production can involve severe animal cruelty, promote antibiotic resistance and public health problems, and produce a lot of greenhouse gases.
That, Beyond Meat founder Ethan Brown has said, is what drove him to develop an alternative protein. If plant-based meat products taste like conventional meat but are delivered to consumers in a more sustainable, climate-friendly, animal-friendly package, then consumers will get on board.
A few years ago, that concept was met with a lot of skepticism. Most Americans aren’t vegan and have no intentions to change that. So how much market could there be for plant-based meat? But by now, it’s pretty clear that the answer is “a substantial one.” Lots of meat-eating Americans are still concerned about animal suffering and about the environment, and are willing to substitute plant-based burgers that increasingly taste nearly identical to meat ones. Beyond Meat and its competitors have thrived, and the restaurant deals just keep on coming.
Plant-based meat remains a very small share of the food sector, and its dramatic growth last year wasn’t enough to stop meat consumption from growing, too. In the next few years, it will become clear whether plant-based meat is growing into a niche product or into a real replacement for the meat products it imitates.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.