Nikki Glaser gets Golden Globes, ‘Ozempic’s biggest night,’ underway. Zoe Saldana wins 1st award

Comedian Nikki Glaser kicked off what she called “Ozempic’s biggest night,” the 82nd Golden Globes, with a promise: “I’m not here to roast you.”

But Glaser, a stand-up whose breakthrough came in a withering roast of Tom Brady, made her way around the ballroom of the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, California, picking out plenty of targets in an opening monologue she had worked out extensively in comedy clubs beforehand.

Glaser, hosting the Globes two weeks before the inauguration of Donald Trump, reserved perhaps her most cutting line for the whole room of Hollywood stars.

“You could really do anything … except tell the country who to vote for,” said Glaser. “But it’s OK, you’ll get ’em next time … if there is one. I’m scared.”

She then turned toward “Wicked” star Ariana Grande with a request: “Ariana, hold my finger.”

Glaser complimented Timothée Chalamet, nominated for his performance as Bob Dylan in “A Complete Unknown,” for having “the most gorgeous eye-lashes on your upper lip.”

While Glaser might not have reached Tina Fey and Amy Poehler levels of laughs, the monologue was mostly a winner, and a dramatic improvement over last year’s host, Jo Koy. Glaser assured the crowd that, win or lose, “the point of making art is to start a tequila brand so popular that you never have to make art again.”

The night’s first winner was Zoe Saldaña for best supporting actress. Saldaña won for her performance in Jacques Audiard’s “Emilia Perez,” the trans musical that came in with a leading 10 nods, followed by Brady Corbet’s postwar epic “The Brutalist,” with seven, and Edward Berger’s papal thriller “Conclave,” with six. Among the top-nominated series were “The Bear,” “Shogun” and “Only Murders in the Building.”

After a rocky few years and the disbanding of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the Golden Globes have seemingly stabilized. The question heading into Sunday was: But can they still put on a good show?

Last year’s comeback edition, hosted by Koy, was widely panned, but it delivered where it counted: Ratings rebounded to about 10 million viewers, according to Nielsen. CBS, who waded in after NBC dumped the Globes, signed up for five more years.

The Globes are now owned by Todd Boehly’s Eldridge Industries and Dick Clark Productions, which acquired the award show from the now defunct Hollywood Foreign Press Association. After diversity and ethics scandals, the HFPA sold off the Globes and dissolved. However, more than a dozen former HFPA members are seeking to have the sale to Eldridge Industries and Dick Clark Productions rescinded.

Either way, the Globes’ primary reason for being, from studios’ perspectives, is to serve as one big marketing event for its awards contenders. It’s still almost two months until the Academy Awards on March 2.

But unlike last year, where “Oppenheimer” steamrolled and the billion-dollar-grossing “Barbie” juiced the race, this year’s top contenders are more arthouse, and no clear favorite has yet emerged.

The Globes are taking place about two weeks before the Trump’s inauguration. So far in Hollywood’s awards season, most nominees have tried to stay out of the political fray, with the major exception of “The Apprentice,” the young Trump drama starring Sebastian Stan and Jeremy Strong. Both actors were nominated by the Globes, with Stan picking up a second nod for his performance in “A Different Man.”

FDA Takes Bold Step to Bridge the Gap in Pulse Oximeter Accuracy for All Skin Tones

In a significant move to enhance patient care across all demographics, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just put forth new draft guidance aimed at improving the performance of pulse oximeters—which are crucial devices for estimating blood oxygen levels. This updated guidance is particularly noteworthy as it addresses long-standing concerns regarding the accuracy of these devices across different skin tones, a topic that has gained attention in recent years due to disparities noted in clinical settings.

Current research has illuminated troubling accuracy differences between pulse oximeters when used on individuals with varying skin pigmentation. This variance can lead to misdiagnoses or delayed medical interventions, especially in darker-skinned individuals. The FDA has acknowledged these limitations, previously informing both patients and healthcare providers of the risks associated with pulse oximetry—”Pulse oximeters have limitations and a risk of inaccuracy under certain circumstances.”

To combat this issue, the FDA’s draft recommendations urge manufacturers to gather more comprehensive clinical data, thereby refining the design and validation of pulse oximeters utilized in medical contexts. By implementing these changes, the FDA aims to ensure that patients of all skin tones receive equal accuracy in their health assessments. As Dr. Michelle Tarver—director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health—asserts, “Our draft recommendations are based on the best available science to help address concerns of disparate performance of pulse oximeters based on an individual’s skin pigmentation.”

These recommendations are not merely bureaucratic red tape; they are a call to action for manufacturers to step up their game. The FDA believes that many existing pulse oximeters on the market might meet the newly proposed performance criteria without necessitating drastic hardware or software changes. If a manufacturer is able to demonstrate comparable performance across skin tones with just updated labeling, the FDA intends to process their submissions swiftly—within 30 days—prompting faster access to reliable devices for the public.

It’s important to note that this guidance specifically targets pulse oximeters intended for medical purposes, primarily utilized in hospitals and doctors’ offices. These devices are used to monitor oxygen saturation levels, which are pivotal in making clinical decisions. In contrast, pulse oximeters marketed as general wellness tools or those aimed at sports and aviation purposes won’t fall under the FDA’s scrutiny, leaving consumers to navigate the marketplace on their own.

In a bid to bolster transparency, the FDA plans to create a publicly accessible webpage listing all FDA-cleared pulse oximeters demonstrating accurate performance across different skin tones. This move will empower healthcare providers and consumers alike, enabling them to identify appropriate tools for effective patient care.

The initiative stems from thorough discussions and data gathering. The FDA engaged multiple stakeholders—scientists, clinicians, and manufacturers—while also conducting two clinical studies to scrutinize pulse oximeter accuracy among diverse populations. These studies serve as a foundational element for the FDA’s updated guidance.

As the FDA gears up for the next steps, they are actively soliciting public comments on the draft guidance within the next 60 days. Post-review, the agency will consider these inputs before finalizing their recommendations.

This effort marks a pivotal stride towards equity in healthcare technology, particularly in a landscape where disparities can have dire consequences. By pressing for rigorous standards that ensure accurate health monitoring—no matter your skin tone—the FDA is signaling that health and wellness should be universally accessible. It’s a bold statement that reminds us: health equity isn’t just a goal; it’s a necessity.

FDA Takes Bold Stance: Ensuring Pulse Oximeters Work for All Skin Tones!

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken a bold step to rectify a pressing issue in healthcare — the reliability of pulse oximeters across diverse skin tones. These devices, which measure blood oxygen levels, have come under fire for their inconsistent performance, particularly for individuals with darker skin. This highlights a sobering truth in medicine: clinical outcomes shouldn’t be a game of chance influenced by one’s pigmentation. It’s about time we confront this inequity head-on.,Dr. Michelle Tarver, leading the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, has made it clear — “This draft guidance is aligned with the FDA’s broader commitment to helping facilitate the development of high-quality, safe, and effective medical devices.” With this initiative, the FDA isn’t merely pushing for accuracy; they are advocating for a healthcare system where every patient, no matter their background, receives equitable treatment.,The crux of the FDA’s strategy lies in proposing new guidelines that refine the study designs and validation procedures for pulse oximeters. The aim is straightforward: to eliminate performance discrepancies that have left so many patients vulnerable. During this process, the agency has undertaken a thorough analysis of extensive data sets, comprising laboratory testing and real-world performance metrics to ensure accuracy across the spectrum of skin tones. This rigorous evaluation underscores the FDA’s steadfast commitment to fostering an inclusive healthcare environment.,Pulse oximeters are not just devices; they are critical tools that influence clinical decisions. Yet, the FDA acknowledges their limitations. These gadgets are useful, yes, but “pulse oximeters have limitations and a risk of inaccuracy under certain circumstances.” This statement sends a powerful message — reliance on technology must come with scrutiny, particularly in the medical field where lives hang in the balance.,In a shift that could streamline access to reliable medical devices, the FDA is poised to expedite the review process for existing pulse oximeters that can meet the new performance criteria without substantial changes. Imagine a rapid 30-day turnaround for decisions, granting healthcare providers swift access to safe, effective tools they can trust. It’s a win-win situation; manufacturers can adapt, and patients receive the quality care they deserve.,But here’s the kicker — this draft guidance does not extend to pulse oximeters marketed as general wellness products. So next time you see one in a convenience store, remember: “To date, a large number of pulse oximeters available over the counter or for sporting/aviation are considered general wellness products that have not been evaluated by the FDA for use in clinical decision-making.” This is a crucial reminder for consumers to exercise caution — when it comes to your health, don’t settle for unverified gadgets.,Transparency is also a cornerstone of this initiative. The FDA plans to establish a publicly accessible webpage listing all FDA-cleared pulse oximeters intended for medical use. This resource is designed to empower healthcare providers and everyday consumers alike, enabling informed decisions in an often confusing market landscape.,As the FDA opens the floor for public comments on their draft guidance, stakeholders are presented with an invaluable opportunity — to influence the final recommendations. For the next 60 days, these comments will be meticulously reviewed, further ensuring that the final guidance resonates with the diverse voices of the patient population that this initiative is meant to serve.,The bottom line? Ensuring equal access to reliable medical devices like pulse oximeters is not just a regulatory move — it’s a monumental leap toward a fairer healthcare system. With the FDA leading this charge, we are witnessing a pivotal juncture in medical history. This isn’t just a makeover for pulse oximeters; it’s a transformation that recognizes and celebrates the inherent diversity within our communities, prioritizing the well-being of every individual, irrespective of their skin tone.

‘Conclave’ Screenwriter Defends Film Amid Megyn Kelly’s Claims It’s ‘Anti-Catholic’: ‘I Stand By It’

After “Conclave” screenwriter Peter Straughan earned the Golden Globe for best screenplay on Sunday evening, he took a moment to address Megyn Kelly’s viral rant about the film.

“Just made the huge mistake of watching the much-celebrated ‘Conclave’ and it is the most disgusting anti-Catholic film I have seen in a long time,” Kelly wrote to her 3.4 million X followers. “Shame on Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci & John Lithgow for starring in it & shame on director Edward Berger (among others).”

Kelly took offense to the film’s twist ending, in which the newly elected pope, Vincent Cardinal Benitez (Carlos Diehz), reveals he is intersex. Fiennes’ character agrees to keep the news a secret as his election is made public.

“They make THE POPE INTERSEX! This is the big exciting twist at the end. I wish I had known so I wouldn’t have watched it,” Kelly wrote in her post. “There are almost no redeeming characters in the movie – every cardinal is morally bankrupt/repulsive. The only exception of course is the intersex pope (who – surprise! – has female reproductive parts) & the cardinal who keeps her secret – bc of course that kind of Catholic secret-keeping must be lionized. I’m disgusted. What a thing to release to streaming just in time for Christmas. They would never do this to Muslims, but Christians/Catholics are always fair game to mock/belittle/smear.”

While Straughan hadn’t directly heard Kelly’s comments, he rejected the claim that the film is “anti-Catholic,” telling Variety in the Golden Globes press room, “I don’t think the film is anti-Catholic. I was brought up Catholic. I was an altar boy.”

“I think the core message of ‘Conclave’ is about the church always having to re-find its spiritual core, because it deals so much with power. That’s always been a careful, difficult balance,” Straughan continued. “To me, that was a very central Catholic ideal that I was brought up with. I stand by it.”

Straughan adapted “Conclave” from the book of the same name by Robert Harris.

Shifting Tides: Tenofovir Alafenamide Emerges as a Promising Player in Hepatitis B Treatment

As the tide turns in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B, healthcare professionals are increasingly discerning the potential advantages of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) over its predecessor, entecavir (ETV). The transition is likened to a strategic chess match—each clinical trial and study unveiling new data, impacting the delicate balance of patient care in this complex field. In recent months, the spotlight has shone brightly on TAF, revealing promising insights into its efficacy and safety profile that have left many within the medical community buzzing with anticipation.

while diving into the ins and outs of hepatitis B treatment, the cumulative incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been at the forefront of researchers’ minds. Using Kaplan-Meier curves—a statistical method to estimate outcomes over time—scientists have unearthed critical data. Alarmingly, in the ETV continuation group, two patients developed HCC. It’s an unsettling statistic, showcasing the reality of this chronic condition. However, the difference in HCC incidence between patients sticking with ETV versus those switching to TAF didn’t reach statistical significance, landing at a p-value of 0.08. Numbers tell an important story, yet they obscure the human impact; here, we see young men battling advanced fibrosis and precarious low platelet counts—a harrowing reality that extends beyond mere statistics.

TAF is often touted as the “safer sibling” within the family of nucleic acid analogs. Emerging clinical studies suggest that TAF reduces the frequency of adverse effects—namely renal dysfunction and diminished bone density—that have historically concerned patients about long-term implications. “The evidence is stacking up, and it’s hard to ignore,” one researcher remarked, and it’s a sentiment echoed by many in the field. While at the 48-week mark, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) outperformed ETV in HBsAg-lowering effects, TAF is demonstrating its mettle, emerging as a formidable force in the treatment landscape of hepatitis B.

Yet, as with any shifting paradigm, the transition isn’t without its hurdles. The study’s findings revealed a decline in HB core-related antigen (HBcrAg) levels, which left much to be desired in terms of optimal patient outcomes. “While the numbers might tell one story, the nuanced reality of patient experiences reminds us that this is far from a simple matter.” Indeed, patient experiences are as critical as the statistics that underpin treatment decisions.

The ramifications of these findings resonate far beyond clinical settings, influencing patient care, treatment planning, and long-term management strategies. The medical community is tasked with weighing the advantages and potential pitfalls of TAF as they seek to provide patients with a treatment regimen that doesn’t merely aim at efficacy, but equally prioritizes safety. “It’s not just about switching medications,” said a spirited advocate for patient-centric care; “it’s about ensuring that patients receive the most effective and safest care possible, tailored uniquely to their circumstances.”

Standing at this crossroads of hepatitis B treatment, a fervor of excitement fills the air. The prospect of TAF as a viable alternative invigorates both patients and providers, equipping them with knowledge, research, and an unwavering commitment to better health outcomes. The journey toward comprehensive care for hepatitis B is far from over, but the emergence of TAF signals a hopeful path forward—one that intertwines science with the personal narratives of those affected, illustrating the profound connection between treatment and the human experience.

FDA Tackles Inequity: Pulse Oximeters Get a Makeover for All Skin Tones!

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is making waves with a bold new initiative focused on pulse oximeters — those essential devices that measure blood oxygen levels and are integral to clinical decision-making. Recent scrutiny has unveiled a glaring issue: these gadgets often fail to deliver reliable results for individuals with darker skin tones. This has sparked the FDA into action, showcasing a commitment to equity in healthcare that is long overdue.

“Although pulse oximetry is useful for estimating blood oxygen levels, pulse oximeters have limitations and a risk of inaccuracy under certain circumstances,” the FDA warns, signaling a need for change. With the agency’s new draft guidance, they’re aiming not only for accuracy but also for a more inclusive approach to medical device validation. This is about leveling the playing field — ensuring that every patient, regardless of skin pigmentation, receives accurate readings when it counts the most.

Dr. Michelle Tarver, the director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, emphasized this mission: “This draft guidance is aligned with the FDA’s broader commitment to helping facilitate the development of high-quality, safe, and effective medical devices.” No longer should clinical outcomes be a dice roll based on the color of one’s skin. The proposed recommendations are set to refine clinical study designs and validation efforts for pulse oximeters, tackling the performance discrepancies that have emerged across a spectrum of skin tones.

Among the keys to this initiative is the anticipation that many existing pulse oximeters on the market can adapt to meet the new performance criteria without hefty modifications. If manufacturers can prove their devices perform comparably across different skin types — even with updated labels and no major hardware or software changes — the FDA aims to expedite the review process. We’re talking about a brisk 30-day turnaround for decisions, ensuring timely access to safe and accurate equipment. This is not just a win for medical professionals; it’s a victory for patients who deserve better.

However, it’s worth noting that this draft guidance doesn’t extend to pulse oximeters marketed as general wellness products. You know, the ones that often sneak into shopping carts with little oversight? “To date, a large number of pulse oximeters available over the counter or for sporting/aviation are considered general wellness products that have not been evaluated by the FDA for use in clinical decision-making,” warns the agency. This distinction is critical — a reminder for consumers to be cautious about trusting unverified devices that could impact their health.

Transparency is key in this new landscape. The FDA plans to launch a publicly accessible webpage listing all FDA-cleared pulse oximeters intended for medical use. This resource will empower healthcare providers and the general public to make informed choices, steering clear of the confusion that often plagues the market.

The FDA’s new direction originates from an in-depth review of countless data sets, including laboratory tests and real-world performance metrics. They’ve engaged with scientists, clinicians, and manufacturers, hosted advisory committee meetings, and even partnered with academic institutions to conduct studies focused on device accuracy for individuals with diverse skin tones. This comprehensive evaluation underlines the agency’s commitment to a healthcare system that prioritizes accuracy and equity.

As the FDA opens the floor for public comments on this draft guidance — a process that will last 60 days — stakeholders have a unique opportunity to influence the final recommendations. The agency will meticulously review these comments, ensuring that the final guidance aligns with the voices of a diverse patient population.

The bottom line? Ensuring equal access to reliable medical devices like pulse oximeters is a crucial step toward a fairer healthcare system. It’s about time we challenge outdated practices that put certain demographics at a disadvantage. With the FDA leading this charge, we are witnessing a significant shift toward a more equitable future in healthcare — a transformation that celebrates diversity and prioritizes the well-being of every individual, regardless of their skin tone.

Melania Trump documentary from Brett Ratner to be released by Amazon

Company says film will give an ‘unprecedented behind-the-scenes look’ and ‘truly unique story’

Melania Trump will be the subject of a new documentary directed by Brett Ratner and distributed by Amazon Prime Video. The streaming arm of the tech giant got exclusive licensing rights for a streaming and theatrical release later this year, the company said Sunday.

Filming is already under way on the documentary. The company said in a statement that the film will give viewers an “unprecedented behind-the-scenes look” at the former and incoming US first lady and also promised a “truly unique story”.

She also released a self-titled memoir late last year. Her husband Donald begins a second presidency on 20 January after serving as the US’s commander in chief from 2017 to 2021.

The film is the latest connection between Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump. The company in December announced plans to donate $1m to help fund the president-elect’s second inauguration – and said that it would also stream the event on its Prime Video service, a separate in-kind donation worth another $1m.

The two men had been at odds in the past. During his first term, Trump criticized Amazon and railed against the political coverage at the Washington Post, which Bezos owns. But he’s struck a more conciliatory tone recently as Amazon and other tech companies seek to improve their relationship with the incoming president.

In December, Bezos expressed some excitement about potential regulatory cutbacks in the coming years and said he was “optimistic” about Trump’s second term.

Bezos in October did not allow the Post to endorse a presidential candidate, a move that led to tens of thousands of people canceling their subscriptions and to protests from journalists with a deep history at the newspaper. This weekend, a Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist quit her job there after an editor rejected her sketch of the newspaper’s owner and other media executives bowing before the president-elect.

The film also marks the first project that Ratner has directed since he was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, including actor Olivia Munn, in the early days of the #MeToo reckoning in November 2017. Ratner, whose lawyer denied the allegations, directed the Rush Hour film series, Red Dragon and X-Men: The Last Stand.

Fernando Sulichin, an Argentine film-maker, is executive producer of the film, which began shooting in December.

Melania Trump, Donald Trump’s third wife, has been an enigmatic figure since her husband announced he was running in the 2016 election. She had sought to maintain her privacy even as she served as first lady, focusing on raising their son, Barron, and promoting her “Be Best” initiative to support the “social, emotional, and physical health of children”.

While she appeared at her husband’s campaign launch event for 2024 and attended the closing night of the Republican national convention in July, she has otherwise stayed off the campaign trail, though the demands of again being first lady may dictate a higher public profile after her husband’s second inauguration day.

Zendaya and Tom Holland are reportedly engaged amid those Golden Globes rumors

It seems Zendaya and Tom Holland are gearing up to to web-sling down the aisle and into married life.

The “Spider-Man” co-stars are reportedly engaged after more than three years of dating. TMZ reported Monday that Holland proposed to the “Challengers” and “Dune: Part Two” star during the holidays in a “very intimate setting in one of Zendaya’s family homes.”

Representatives for the actors didn’t respond immediately to The Times’ requests for confirmation Sunday night and Monday.

News of the reported engagement broke mere hours after Zendaya turned heads at 2025 Golden Globes, where she was spotted wearing a massive diamond ring on her left ring finger, according to Times columnist Amy Kaufman. The ring in question was not mentioned in a press release from Bulgari that detailed Zendaya’s other red carpet bling.

When Kaufman asked, “Are you engaged?,” Zendaya flashed her ring, smiled coyly and shrugged her shoulders.

Sunday’s awards ceremony wasn’t the first time Zendaya addressed engagement rumors. In September 2023, the Emmy-winning “Euphoria” star shut down rumors after sparking social media speculation. In a since-expired Instagram selfie, she was seen showing off a black Golden State Warriors hat and a pearl ring on her left hand.

She explained at the time in an Instagram story that the rumors had her feeling like “I can’t post anything, you guys.”

“I posted it for my hat. Not for the ring on my right finger, you guys,” she said and laughed in the video that circulated on X and Instagram. “Seriously, you think that’s how I would drop the news? What?”

The actors, both 28, first shared the screen in 2017’s “Spider-Man: Homecoming.” Holland starred as the titular Marvel hero and Zendaya as his classmate Michelle “MJ” Jones. Though they started off as platonic partners onscreen, offscreen their chemistry was palpable. Remember that signature episode of “Lip Sync Battle”?

A year after the movie premiered, she told Variety that she and Holland were simply friends.

In the 2019 sequel, “Spider-Man: Far From Home,” things start getting serious between Holland’s hero and Zendaya’s “MJ,” and they shared their first onscreen kiss.

Years later, that spark finally manifested offscreen as the co-stars were first spotted kissing in public in July 2021, months before the premiere of “Spider-Man: No Way Home.”

They made their relationship red carpet official at the blockbuster’s London premiere on December 2021. Since then, Tomdaya has made appearances at numerous red carpet events, basketball games and Beyoncé’s Renaissance world tour.

In August 2023, Zendaya told Elle why she prefers to keep her relationship with the “Uncharted” star private — save for the occasional Instagram post.

“I can’t not be a person and live my life and love the person I love,” she said. “But also, I do have control over what I choose to share. It’s about protecting the peace and letting things be your own but also not being afraid to exist.”

Holland is set to swing back into theaters in 2026 for the fourth installment of his “Spider-Man” series, though it’s unclear whether his reported fiancée will return as MJ.

Kristen Bell reveals Dax Shepard watching football during the Golden Globes: ‘Priorities’

Netflix musical thriller “Emilia Perez” topped the slate of films nominated for the 2025 Golden Globes. The awards air Jan. 5.

Dax Shepard is always ready for some football, even while attending one of Hollywood’s biggest events of the year.

In an Instagram story, Kristen Bell shared a video taken from inside Sunday’s Golden Globe Awards, which showed that her husband was watching football on his phone in the middle of the ceremony.

The clip started out with Bell filming the Golden Globes stage while seated behind presenters Harrison Ford and Anthony Mackie, who were giving out the award for best animated film.

But while Ford and Mackie spoke, Bell panned over to show that Shepard had his head down and was focused on watching Sunday’s game between the Detroit Lions and the Minnesota Vikings. The “Armchair Expert” podcast host had the game streaming on his phone, which was placed between his legs.

“#Priorities,” Bell wrote on top of the clip.

The two were seated so close to the stage that Shepard could be seen looking down at his lap on the Golden Globes telecast while Ford and Mackie were presenting. The Detroit Lions ultimately defeated the Minnesota Vikings during Sunday’s game.

Shepard accompanied Bell to the Golden Globes, where she was nominated for best actress in a comedy series for her Netflix show “Nobody Wants This.” Her co-star Adam Brody, who attended the ceremony with wife Leighton Meester, was also nominated for best actor in a comedy series, and the show competed for best comedy series. “Nobody Wants This” did not end up winning any Golden Globes, with Bell losing her award to Jean Smart from “Hacks,” best actor in a comedy series going to Jeremy Allen White from “The Bear,” and best comedy series being awarded to “Hacks.”

Shepard isn’t the only star whose love of sports has conflicted with their awards show attendance.

Last year, “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” star Rob McElhenney, a huge fan of the Philadelphia Eagles, posted a photo of himself watching a game between the Eagles and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers while in the audience at the Emmy Awards.

“Who schedules the Emmys the same night as the @eagles #gobirds #FlyEaglesFly,” McElhenney wrote on X.

‘I stand by it’: ‘Conclave’ screenwriter claps back at Megyn Kelly’s ‘anti-Catholic’ accusation after Golden Globe win

Not everyone is a fan of Conclave. Last Sunday Megyn Kelly, a lifelong Catholic, took to X/Twitter to rant about the Catholic-themed thriller, and stated that watching it was a “huge mistake.” Last night, after the movie won Best Adapted Screenplay at the Golden Globes, screenwriter Peter Straughan addressed Kelly’s comments.

The writer spoke to Variety after his win, and while he didn’t check Kelly’s rant first-hand, he had a lot to say about how Conclave depicts Catholicism, as well as his own relationship with religion. During her rant, Kelly called the award-winning movie “disgusting” and “anti-Catholic,” to which Straughan fired back:

“I don’t think the film is anti-Catholic. I was brought up Catholic. I was an altar boy. I think the core message of ‘Conclave’ is about the church always having to re-find its spiritual core, because it deals so much with power. That’s always been a careful, difficult balance. To me, that was a very central Catholic ideal that I was brought up with. I stand by it.”

General audiences and critics also don’t seem to have a problem with Conclave. The movie became a surprise hit in theaters in late 2024, and had its release date moved up once distrubutors realized that it could be a strong Oscar contender. Sure enough, Conclave is dominating the awards season along with blockbusters like Wicked and Dune: Part 2. But this also means that the movie’s popularity will put it on the radar of people who otherwise wouldn’t even consider watching it.

Conclave stars Ralph Fiennes (Harry Potter franchise) as a cardinal who, after the Pope’s death, starts to uncover a conspiracy helmed by other cardinals as to who will succeed the deceased in one of the most powerful positions in the world. The cast also features John Lithgow (The Old Man), Stanley Tucci (The Devil Wears Prada) and Isabella Rossellini (Blue Velvet). The thriller was directed by previous Oscar nominee Edward Berger (All Quiet On The Western Front), and Straughan adapted the story from a best-selling novel by author Robert Harris.

In her viral rant, Megyn Kelly mentioned the cast and director by name, and stated it was a “shame” they made that movie. The biggest problem for her was [spoiler alert] the fact that it is revealed that the Pope was intersex, which infuriated the journalist. She wrote:

I wish I had known so I wouldn’t have watched it. There are almost no redeeming characters in the movie – every cardinal is morally bankrupt/repulsive. The only exception of course is the intersex pope (who – surprise! – has female reproductive parts) & the cardinal who keeps her secret – bc of course that kind of Catholic secret-keeping must be lionized. I’m disgusted. What a thing to release to streaming just in time for Christmas. They would never do this to Muslims, but Christians/Catholics are always fair game to mock/belittle/smear.”

Despite what Kelly stated, Muslims have been the target of Hollywood for decades, which frequently depicts Middle Easterners as terrorists or religious fanatics — or both. The change in how Muslim characters are represented is fairly recent, and it will still be a long while until the prejudice that movies helped construct is torn down.

Conclave currently holds a 93% approval rate on Rotten Tomatoes. At the Golden Globes, it was also nominated in the Best Movie, Best Director and acting categories for Rossellini and Fiennes.