Mailbag for February 27, 2026
Bozos and the Met, is Timothée Chalamet overexposed, why A24 dumped 'How to Make A Killing', on studios to purchasing shows mid-run, the gossip 'process', managing slow weeks, and a live chat!
Dear Squawkers,
Today in Where the Fuck Did the Time Go?, we are now just two months away from the Met Gala. Which means that there are celebrities who haven’t only been working on their Oscar looks, but also their Met Gala looks. In fact, the average planning time for a Met Gala look probably far exceeds the planning for an Oscar look since a nomination is never guaranteed.
The Costume Institute – which is what the Met Gala supports as a fundraiser – announced its 2026 exhibition, Costume Art, back in December, along with this year’s co-chairs: Beyoncé, Nicole Kidman, Venus Williams, and Anna Wintour. This is not new. What’s new is the Met’s press release this week confirming the dress code: “Fashion is Art”. In my opinion, that makes “dressing on theme”, which is a huge part of the Met Gala conversation on the night, not all that challenging. Literally any fashion meets the theme. But I can’t wait to see Katy Perry and Justin Trudeau show up inside a giant picture frame attached on each side to their respective belts. If there’s anyone who has consistently dressed at the Met Gala like a middle school papier-mâché art project, it’s her.
As the New York Times pointed out after the Met’s press release, there was a detail buried in the announcement. Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez Bezos, who were previously confirmed to be event’s lead sponsors, are now also honorary co-chairs. It is rare that sponsors are also honorary co-chairs. Being co-chairs means that Jeff and Lauren get to be part of the receiving line, and the co-chair class photo. They get to be that much closer to Beyoncé, the cultural deity.
Lauren, I imagine, is privately gloating about this. But the point that the NYT is trying to make is that the way it was revealed in the press release was almost like…we hope people don’t see this, don’t look at that part, don’t read that line, focus on the theme and all the other celebrity names that come before the Bozos are mentioned. Because, of course, it didn’t exactly go well a few months ago at the news that they were sponsoring (read: buying) the Met Gala.
So to go back to the questions that people had during Paris Fashion Week in January when Law Roach was seen at several shows with her…
…it may not have just been for PFW, it may have been preparation for the Met Gala. Per Vanessa Friedman in her article for the NYT, that should have been the tipoff that Lauren had secured her position as co-chair. And there is no way that Lauren isn’t approaching the Met Gala as her “moment”.
We can debate in due time, when the Met Gala is underway and the celebrity/stylist and designer combinations are shown on the red steps, what it means when a creative chooses to work or not work with any given individual. It is premature to shout about it now before we even see the look and who envisioned it. But it’s important to remember that decisions like this are by committee – there’s an entire infrastructure of complicity that has to be in place before someone like Law Roach even gets involved.
As Sarah has written, the Bezos are trying to be modern patrons of art, the Medicis of these digital times. The Medici family financed the Renaissance. But…ummmm…are we anywhere near a Renaissance in America or are the Bezos actually funding a new dark age in history and the fall of an empire?
Well, shit, on that happy note, let’s get to the mailbag.
Question from Patty:
Is Timothee Chalamet overexposed and at what cost? I think he is. For awhile everyone was praising him for being honest about really wanting an Oscar, but isn’t this overexposure part of the game.
Lainey’s Answer:
He is overexposed. But I’m not sure his overexposure is entirely his fault – which is probably an unpopular opinion. I know he’s not liked in these parts, LOL, and I’m not here to change your mind if you disapprove (weird word choice considering it’s probably not up to any of us to approve or disapprove but it’s the one that best describes the situation), though I think much of the backlash against him has to do with Kylie Jenner which…sure…is technically his “fault”, but if we’re talking about famous couples, they actually aren’t as in-your-face about their relationship as you might think.
On pap count, on official public appearance count, on social media count from their own channels, they are nowhere the exposure of TNT or Rihanna and Rocky or the Beckhams, or Dua Lipa and Callum Turner, or the Biebers. It’s just that both Timmy and Kylie are so viral on their own, no matter what they’re doing, that the combination of them generates so much chatter, even when they’re not visible. And as an internet boyfriend who enjoyed so much popularity prior to them falling in love, as his generation’s first true movie star, hooking up with a member of the First Family of Shamelessness led to people doubting his artistic integrity. This is where being the first true movie star of his generation has worked against him when, ironically, it was previously such an asset. Because the algorithm over-amplifies and accelerates both adoration and outrage, whether it’s warranted or not.
You asked whether or not “overexposure” is “part of the game”. When promoting a movie, sure, it is. Timmy’s Marty Supreme press tour, in terms of actual activities and outings was standard, and no more and no less than other actors who are pushing a film that has Oscar aspirations. And some level of backlash for Oscar contenders is not uncommon. Two years ago, by the end of award season, everyone was sick of Emma Stone. We were live-chatting here on Oscar night when she won and there was a lot of bitching about it, because so many people were rooting for Lily Gladstone and because Emma already had an Oscar at that point.
Timmy’s backlash has far exceeded Emma’s. It’s a nuclear combination of his own notoriety, and Kylie’s, and the whole mess with Josh Safdie, and the fact that so much of the marketing around Marty Supreme played on the personality of the character – abrasive, self-sabotaging, thoroughly unlikeable. Plus, the clever ideas that were outside of the norm of regular movie promotion, like the Zoom call (which I still think is hilarious) and the entourage of human ping pong balls and and and and…
All of it was designed to go viral, which worked to get people to see the film, and then turned as Timmy’s position as Best Actor frontrunner solidified. As you said, that is the game – you play by the sword, you die by the sword. Nobody needs to feel bad for Timmy Chalamet if he doesn’t win the Oscar because the internet is sick of him, although again, Sarah and I would like to repeat this, the internet does not vote on the Oscars. (I would also like to point out the hypocrisy of the internet during this award season of actively rooting against Timmy who, I would argue, is so much less objectionable than fucking recent BAFTA winner Sean Penn and his chainsmoking in the presence of two pregnant women inside the ballroom at the Golden Globes.)
For what it’s worth, I’m not personally rooting for Timmy to win the Oscar. I would prefer to see him win it over Leonardo DiCaprio, if it was a two-horse race, but I would rather see it go to Michael B Jordan, Wagner Moura, and Ethan Hawke, in that order. So if any of those actors win, I’m happy on Oscar night. If Timmy wins, I can’t say I’d be elated but honestly, I wouldn’t revolt either.
Because I enjoy Timothée Chalamet as an actor. I think he’s one of the great young talents of cinema. And on that note, I disagree with some comments that have been made about him being one note, that he only plays brash punks. That is not true of his performances as Hal in The King or in Wonka or in the first Dune and definitely not as Laurie in Little Women. There are people out there who are still in their feelings over his chemistry with Saoirse Ronan, still devastated over that scene when she rejects him but are too afraid to admit it now, because the temperature has changed.
But that’s the point I want to end on where the state of Timmy’s career is concerned. Little Women was Greta Gerwig, the second time she directed him after Lady Bird. Since then, he has only worked with auteur male directors. And looking ahead, the only projects he’s attached to are with male directors – both of whom he’s already made movies with, James Mangold (A Complete Unknown) and Paul King (Wonka). That’s in addition to his two films with Luca Guadagnino and three with Denis Villeneuve.
For the foreseeable future, then, Timmy is going the way of Leonardo DiCaprio, who has not worked with a female director in OVER 30 YEARS. Which I will side-eye him for every chance I get, because please don’t try to tell me that he hasn’t had the opportunity. If there’s any reason for me to potentially be underwhelmed by Timmy’s career choices, it’s this.
Question from Stephanie C:
Why did A24 dump How to Make A Killing? I know Glen Powell overexposure is real but everything I’ve heard about it from real people is good, if not life changing. It seems like they left him and Margaret Qualley out to dry.
Sarah’s answer:
Speaking of overexposure!!! In case you missed it, How to Make a Killing starring Glen Powell and Margaret Qualley opened last week. It looks fun enough, the critical reception was mixed, but audiences seem more positive. The audience that turned up, that is. The film bombed, pulling in $3.5 million on its opening weekend.
A24 dumped a Glen Powell star vehicle in February—during the Olympics! A time when studios know not to release anything they care about!—because they knew it wasn’t going to break out. Nobody knows anything yadda yadda, but also sometimes you have enough information to reasonably predict how a film will perform. There are prediction models—some better than others, Disney’s are incredibly good, for instance—and sometimes they’re pretty spot on about a film’s box office potential. I think A24 got a sense this film wasn’t going to move the needle and they released it in a way to minimize damage. The box office is ameliorated, somewhat, by a sub-$20 million budget. By not going crazy on marketing, they save themselves some financial heartache.
But I also think A24 is overextended. They’re trying to be more mainstream, they have switched from being an indie darling to actively wanting to make blockbusters, and I think as a result, their quality control has diminished somewhat. They’re making more stuff, and not all of it is good. Sure, not every movie they released before was a commercial hit, but however their films did in the marketplace, they were at least interesting as works of art. Even if I didn’t like a particular A24 film, I probably thought about it some. But as they’ve pursued wider success, their films have felt a little…flattened. Not as spiky, not as consistently interesting. I mean, just look at some of the reviews for Killing:
“…a blandness that’s surprising coming from the writer-director of the much sharper Emily the Criminal.” – Frank Scheck, THR
“…a case study on how far a charming ensemble can carry an otherwise mediocre motion picture…” –Sara Michelle Fetters, MovieFreak
“It’s slick but empty and barely manages to leave a mark…” – Adam Graham, Detroit News
There’s only so many ways to say “mediocre”! But we weren’t calling A24 films “mediocre” just a few years ago. (It’s especially surprising coming from John Patton Ford, who previously made the spiky, observant Emily the Criminal.) Ultimately, I think trying go mainstream is bad for A24. You can’t be mainstream and a tastemaker. You also can’t properly support your projects when you’re just making too much stuff to keep an eye on every ball (see also: Marvel). So yeah, they hung the film and its stars out to dry, but they also prevented it from being a bigger disaster by limiting the marketing spend. The real issue, to me, is A24 burning years of goodwill and torching their tastemaker reputation in the name of mainstream appeal. SOMEONE has to be interesting in this town, dammit!
Question from Vitally Useless:
Apple recently acquired Severance from its former production house, Fifth Season. It did the same thing when it acquired Silo from AMC. Is it common for a studio to purchase a show this way mid run?
Sarah’s answer:
For reference, Apple has acquired all rights and intellectual property related to Severance from production company Fifth Season.
This locking down of all rights is more common now than it was barely a decade ago when linear TV was still dominant. It was very common, indeed, it was industry standard, during the linear era that a show could air on one network but be produced by another company, one often belonging to a rival. For instance, Brooklyn 99 was produced by Universal TV but aired on Fox until 2018, when Fox cancelled the show. NBC then picked it up, but as part of the NBCUniversal conglomerate, they were really just bringing B99 home.
In the streaming era, though, streamers want to own EVERYTHING. It’s about keeping titles in their library permanently and not having everything constantly shifting around between the various streaming platforms. Now that Apple owns Severance lock, stock, and barrel, they can be the exclusive streaming home of Severance ad infinitum. From a business standpoint it makes a lot of sense, and it’s also more appealing as a consumer to just know where things live and not constantly have to track down your comfort shows when they jump to a new platform.
This didn’t really used to matter, but for a streamer with a hit show, OF COURSE they want to lock everything in and keep it forever. We’ll be seeing more of these acquisitions in future, but the real change is that streamers are just making deals from day one to own everything. Again, that wasn’t really the shape of things in the linear world, but in a streaming world, it’s all about exclusivity and perpetual platform rights.
Question from Monika:
In an era of “fake news” allegations, would you ever consider adding other consistent segments to your LG site? For example: A “Verified” tap and every story published within that tab are stories you predicted from previous posts that went from rumor to “verified” status? I say this because I have noticed Lainey sometimes predicts an outcome that months later actually comes true. I think that deserves spotlighted recognition, and would be cool to see it go full circle. ⭕️ 😀
Lainey’s Answer:
Monika, thank you for seeing me. I am a first-class braggart, and those of you who’ve been reading LaineyGossip over the years are probably quite familiar with my boasting about getting shit right. That said, as monstrous as my ego is, I don’t know that a “verified” tab is necessary because as corny as I’m about to sound, what’s become our goal at LG and here at The Squawk isn’t so much being right about anything but rather the processes that are essential in telling a story properly. Kinda like in calculus, or least when I was learning calculus, when you were awarded marks for showing your work and then getting to your answer rather than just writing down the answer. Some of my teachers would often give points for the steps even if the answer was wrong, because it’s in the steps where you see whether or not a student has actually grasped the concepts.
I don’t mean to be high brow about gossip, which should never be inaccessible the way calculus is inaccessible, what I’m trying to say is that instead of a verified tab, I’d much prefer that in general anyone who is out there gossiping take a more thorough approach to it. And that those who do it are rewarded for it with more views and therefore are more sustainable!
Here’s an example – last week I posted about the rumour that Jacob Elordi might be the next Bond. Someone told someone else that they were due to start shooting in October and in my article, I said that…sure…anything is possible, Jacob is at the top of the casting lists right now, but the October thing sounded sus. Because Denis Villeneuve doesn’t really have a lot of time to be rebooting Bond in October given that he’ll be getting ready to release Dune 3, a movie that costs a LOT OF MONEY. Just like New Bond will COST A LOT OF MONEY. Which requires his full focus.
When I sent that post over to Sarah for editing, she wrote back that that, “there’s no way Denis is shortchanging Dune 3 and going to work on a goddamn Bond film before that movie is in theaters”.
And, l mean, Sarah and I are reasonably intelligent, but you don’t have to be a genius to question that schedule conflict. You just have to have some experience with how Hollywood works, how filmmaking works. But very few outlets or TikTok accounts engaging with that Jacob Elordi Bond rumour were suspicious about the October date in question. The rumour is wayyyyyy more trafficked than my post doubting it. Will a “verified” tab change that? Doubtful. So if you can think of a way for posts to blow up that are not as sexy as JACOB ELORDI IS JAMES BOND (even though the story is flimsy), let me know.
Question from Michelle B:
What do you all do on slow gossip weeks? Do you have stories you have saved that you then can publish or do you have to scramble?
Sarah’s answer:
I don’t do anything! I am burrowed into my blankets DOING NOTHING! Seriously, I don’t pre-write stuff because I have learned not to expend that energy until it’s actually needed. And gossip is a topical business, you don’t want to be trying to out-guess readers’ interests. Sometimes I bookmark a story or save an email, because maybe it’s not immediately compelling but I think the next time XYZ celebrity sticks their head above ground and we have fresh photos—to promote topicality—I can come back to this thing. But that’s as far as it goes, a very loose bookmark list and 👀 folder of emails I can refer to for inspiration when new photos or bigger headlines crop up.
But if you ever see me writing about something and you’re like, Kinda surprised Sarah even cares about this person/thing/event, just know that is me scraping the bottom of the barrel because it’s a slow day.
It definitely won’t be slow this weekend and for the next couple of weeks though…
Sunday is the SAG Awards, or The Actor Awards, even though none of us can remember to call it that. We will be LIVE-CHATTING here at The Squawk starting at 730pm ET and through the whole show. Join us if you’re a paid subscriber, and if you’re not, subscribe!
Thanks for your support and for being part of the Squawk community!
Keep squawking and keep gossiping,
Lainey and Sarah
My Timmy theory is that much of the internet would ignore or forgive many of the factors contributing to his overexposure if he shaved off that little mustache and regrew his luscious locks.
On the A24 point, I work in mergers and two years ago i worked on a deal for a sale of a network that was lets say, really good at making trash television. I was actually really shocked that A24 was one of the interested bidders. They are not interested in being indie darlings anymore.