top of page

Nina Lee, award-winning filmmaker and creator of The Girls Room and Sorry About That, recently posted a thread on X (formerly Twitter) where she revealed that the sale of two of her romance film projects depends on how well the new romantic comedy film You, Me & Tuscany does in theaters. She said in the thread, “A film that has nothing to do with me could quite literally change my life.”

Lee’s call to support the film has re-ignited the discourse about which films get made and why black films have a harder time being green lit in Hollywood. Why is Hollywood making a decision about future black films based on the success of one movie?



There’s an age-old myth in Hollywood that black-led films only appeal to black audiences and aren’t as profitable. Studios don’t put as much money or effort into promoting them, which reinforces the idea that one black film has to prove itself for future black films to be considered worth the investment.


Image credits to Universal Pictures
Image credits to Universal Pictures

Even Ryan Coogler’s Sinners wasn’t safe. Despite the success of films like Black Panther and the Creed franchise, Variety's April 2025 article cast doubt on the film’s profitability before the opening weekend was even over. Even with a $61 million global debut, the article stated that “profitability remains a ways away.”

Black films of any genre face this problem, and rom-coms, though popular, rarely follow two non-white leads, not to mention black leads. Plus, in an era of IP-driven films, studios hesitate to greenlight original films in general.


Unfortunately, this means You, Me & Tuscany is already fighting an uphill battle even before its release, as it has the distinction of being all three: an original, black-led, romantic comedy.


Hollywood has always been cautious about the films it makes, looking at the success of prior films before making others like it. But despite theater-goers expressing their desire for original films over endless remakes and sequels, studios are still reluctant to give original films a chance.

In an era where social media platforms are constantly vying for consumers’ attention, Hollywood is still making an effort to restore theater attendance post-COVID, and franchises seem to be the best way to guarantee a return on studios’ investments.


But it seems that black-led films are held to a higher standard than films where the director or lead actors are of a different race. Instead of being judged on their own merits, the fate of future black films relies heavily on the success of the one film. Many online have pointed out the double standard, one post saying, “…if ONE black romcom fails the careers of multiple black filmmakers will be hit…white romcoms can fail, and they will still make new ones.”

Will Packer, a producer of You, Me & Tuscany, spoke out as well.



That’s not to say You, Me & Tuscany can’t or won’t be successful. Despite the double standard, black films have always been profitable.

Sinners, for example, was an original, black-led horror film that went back to theaters multiple times, and earned 19 Oscar nominations–the most in Oscars’ history. There is also the increased nostalgia online for the era of romantic comedies during the 1990s and 2000s, which studios could be tapping into.

The public has more than proven it’s ready for a change. Now it’s up to Hollywood to respond.


Being an original, black-led, rom-com might seem like three strikes against the film, but these are actually three merits in favor of it because these are all things people want to see. Nina Lee’s thread on X is not just a call to see this particular film; it’s a call for the audience to use its power to influence the kinds of movies Hollywood makes, and the audience has more power than it realizes.


That being said, You, Me & Tuscany, starring Halle Bailey and Regé-Jean Page, will release in theaters on April 10, 2026. Let’s go out and support!

Everything has become stan twitter, and stan twitter has become sports fandom. Here’s how it’s affecting awards season. 



The 2025 awards season has finally come to an end. From discourse around Timotheé Chalamet’s Marty Supreme marketing campaign (and everything else about him), to stan wars erupting from the results of every major awards program, social media has become a hostile hellscape. But since when did social media have this much of an impact on major awards ceremonies? Why does the prestigious nature that these events seem to have had in the past no longer exist? 


Simply put, everything has become stan culture. While this may be a broad statement, it seems that the notion of shows like the Grammys and the Emmys have become hubs for fans of every individual nominee to fight and compare why their favorite nominee has to win and why any other nominee cannot. The Grammys in particular have become saturated with categories, leaving room for more nominees. It has become more embarrassing for your fave to not receive a nomination than it has for it to be an honor. 


Musicians such as Sabrina Carpenter and Billie Eilish have developed intense fanbases that tend to believe in awards supremacy. Eilish, who holds 10 wins with 34 nominations with her career being less than a decade old, has slightly stirred the pot within the past few years of the awards. Evidently, becoming a darling of the Recording Academy rarely goes home empty-handed. In the 2025 awards, Beyoncé won Album of the Year, arguably the highest honor of the night, and stans of the 24-year-old musician were incredibly displeased. Arguments of who had more streams and track virality piled against Cowboy Carter, the winner of the award. Fandoms began to point fingers at one another, the Beyhive alleging racism against fans of Eilish for the outrage of her win, Eilish fans concluding that the award was paid for by Roc Nation. What neither seems to consider is that experts and knowledgeable members of the Recording Academy simply saw Cowboy Carter as the album of the year, plain and simple. However, fans could find some sense of peace after the 2026 ceremony, after Eilish re-released the track “Wildflower” as a single, well after its initial May 2024 release on the album. To have qualified for the 2026 Grammy Awards, music had to have been released between August 31, 2024, and August 30, 2025. Eilish’s Hit Me Hard and Soft " was only eligible to be nominated for the 2025 Grammys, and she released “Wildflower” as a single on March 4, 2025, nearly ten months after it had already been released with the rest of the album. There are no rules against this per se, but the song won the “Song of the Year” award for the 2026 Grammys, which left some viewers upset with the snub of other songs in the category, such as “DtMF” by Bad Bunny and “Luther” by SZA and Kendrick Lamar. 


Alas, Eilish has now won a Grammy for the previously “snubbed” 2024 album. This culture of stans demanding higher numbers, more wins, and better statistics is highly reminiscent of sports culture. Variety reported that for the 2026 Oscars, betting on the awards has become a $100 million business, with bets wagered on who will win. Kalshi and Polymarket ads are difficult to ignore, with the amount of commercial time betting platforms had during the broadcast of the Super Bowl and when the latter partnered with the Golden Globes to integrate live odds into the ceremony. While online betting forums have been around for years, they gained massive popularity right before the U.S. 2024 Presidential Election. Once players bet correctly on Trump’s win, sites such as Kalshi and Polymarket have entered the mainstream for various events. Online predictions do not necessarily count as gambling (which is regulated by a few states in the U.S.), which is why these sites are able to promote their platforms as heavily as they do. 


Stan culture and betting are intertwined has turned the awards season into a gamified event. Press and publicity have been around for as long as Hollywood has, but now more than ever can a potential smear campaign or just saying an ill-worded statement on ballet and opera can change the public’s perception of “deserving” the award. Chalamet’s Best Actor campaign for Marty Supreme was nothing short of interesting, to say the least. From standing on top of the Las Vegas Sphere as an orange ping-pong ball to tapping slightly into method press, becoming Marty, embodying greatness, and desiring to be at the top. Many have been turned off by his behavior as it drastically opposes his previously indie-darling persona from the late 2010’s/ early 2020s. Recently, he has found himself in hot water with his comments about ballet in opera while in conversation with former Interstellar costar, Matthew McConaughey. Major ballets and operas across the world have given their two cents on the matter, dissing Chalamet in any way they can. This event has caused a major setback in the public’s view of who should win Best Actor, leading many to one: root for and two: bet on Michael B. Jordan to win. Ultimately, the award went to Jordan, not without some ballet and opera jokes thrown Chalamet’s way during the ceremony. 


The prestige of the award remains partly in its title and the doors it may open for performers and filmmakers. However, the run and the “competition,” so to speak, is no longer a test of the “best performance,” it's a game of numbers. This is where I believe stans across the board would do well in sports fan culture. Once awards and streams became a commodity within stan culture, the direct correlation became blatantly evident. The awards season has now become an amalgamation of stan wars and morality olympics. Does Chalamet deserve an Oscar ever because of his comments? Should movies with bad characters playing antagonists win Best Picture? Can Beyoncé or Taylor Swift win another Grammy? They’ve already won plenty! 


Numbers have no place in the space of honoring art. If you want to bet on winners or compare stats, watch a sport.



Have you ever heard of the pink tax? No, I’m not specifically talking about the color pink or your actual taxes, but an extra cost that’s often added to products and services marketed toward women. It’s basically gender-based pricing, where items marketed toward women are more expensive than the same or very similar items marketed toward men. This directly impacts women’s buying power, with studies showing personal care products can be roughly 13% more expensive than men’s, creating a substantial financial burden over time.


A lot of these products are things society says women have to have, and many of them we realistically can’t go without. For instance, personal care items that we use regularly and most times, even monthly, are affected by the pink tax. Things like razors, deodorant, lotion, clothing, and even services often have a male counterpart that is cheaper, even though the product is basically the same.


Even when you look at actual products, you can see the difference. At Target, a men’s Degree Cool Rush deodorant is priced lower than a women’s Degree MotionSense deodorant, even though they serve the same purpose. 


This pricing difference even starts with kids. A Spider-Man bike helmet marketed toward boys can be significantly cheaper than a nearly identical Spider-Man “Ghost-Spider” helmet marketed toward girls, just because it’s pink and branded differently. It shows how early this kind of pricing starts, even when the product itself is basically the same.

While it’s called a “tax,” it’s not actually a government tax. It’s more of a price markup, mostly caused by marketing

tactics. Companies often claim the higher prices are due to production differences, like adding colors or scents, but realistically, those small changes don’t justify the consistent price gap. We don’t need pink versions of products; we need products that are safe, effective, and affordable.

There’s also something called the tampon tax, which refers to the sales tax placed on essential menstrual products. These are necessary items, not luxury goods, yet they are still taxed in many places. Some states are starting to remove this tax, but it’s still an issue.


The pink tax can be fought in small ways, like buying the “men’s” version of products when they’re cheaper, but that doesn’t fix the bigger problem. This is really a form of price discrimination, and it’s something women deal with every day, whether they realize it or not.


The impact adds up. Women can end up paying up to $2,000 more per year for similar products. Over a lifetime, that’s a huge amount of money just because of gender-based marketing. On top of existing wage gaps and inequality in the workforce, this becomes just one more financial burden.


So is this really the cost of being a woman? It might sound like a theory, but there’s strong evidence that it’s happening. The pink tax shows how inequality can exist in everyday things, even in something as simple as buying deodorant or a bike helmet.


References ;






Vs 




And 



vs


You reached the end! Make an account to get updated when new articles and interviews drop.

bottom of page