Spielberg to push for new Oscars rules that exclude streaming movies(engadget.com)
engadget.com
Spielberg to push for new Oscars rules that exclude streaming movies
https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/04/spielberg-to-ask-academy-for-anti-streaming-rules/
87 comments
I was saying this to someone just a few days ago. And, if I might add, many of the films from Netflix and Amazon are way better.
I honestly can't think of a single Netflix movie that isn't, to me, shallow or half-assed. I'm curious to know which movies you found way better, as I might have missed them.
Roma seems to have been received well to critical acclaim.
Other than the critics, I don't know anyone who was actually able to force themselves to finish watching that slow, pretentious film. Like most of the films on the ballot this year it did not deserve to be nominated.
Old Man Here.
Nor would they be able to sit through 2001 A Space Odyssey. The quality of the movie hasn't changed but the audience has.
I love betting people they can't sit through one of the best movies ever. I have yet to see some under 40 make it through.
Nor would they be able to sit through 2001 A Space Odyssey. The quality of the movie hasn't changed but the audience has.
I love betting people they can't sit through one of the best movies ever. I have yet to see some under 40 make it through.
38 here. I love that film, and many others with similar pacing.
I don't think it's age. There are plenty of older folk who used to be able to appreciate slower works — be it film, music, literature, or art — but no longer have quite the attention span for it. We appear to have managed to lower the attention span of society as a whole in the past few decades.
I don't think it's age. There are plenty of older folk who used to be able to appreciate slower works — be it film, music, literature, or art — but no longer have quite the attention span for it. We appear to have managed to lower the attention span of society as a whole in the past few decades.
Not sure that has anything to do with slowness or appreciation. It has to do if you enjoy the material and then if it's worth your time.
I kinda liked Apocalypse Now. I am not rewatching Redux, it's just too long. I have no problem rewatching the 3 extended editions of the Lord of the Ring, even one after the other.
I kinda liked Apocalypse Now. I am not rewatching Redux, it's just too long. I have no problem rewatching the 3 extended editions of the Lord of the Ring, even one after the other.
You don’t know me but I not only found Roma to be wonderful, I traveled to another city just to see a 70mm projection.
I loved it. But I was lucky enough to see it on a big screen
i can't tell exactly what Spielberg's criteria is from the article, but Roma had a theatrical release so i'm not sure it counts here
but Roma had a theatrical release so i'm not sure it counts here
He seems to think that Roma sticks to the letter of the law, but not the spirit and thus wants the law changed. Roma, the argument goes, had a limited token theatrical release solely to qualify it for the Oscars, but the intention was always that people where meant to see the movie on 'TV' rather than at the cinema.
He seems to think that Roma sticks to the letter of the law, but not the spirit and thus wants the law changed. Roma, the argument goes, had a limited token theatrical release solely to qualify it for the Oscars, but the intention was always that people where meant to see the movie on 'TV' rather than at the cinema.
> limited token theatrical release solely to qualify it for the Oscars
A lot of non-US (and even US) films do this as well. The distributors do a limited release to qualify for the awards, and bank on it winning the awards so that they can do a wide release of an "award-winning" film.
A lot of non-US (and even US) films do this as well. The distributors do a limited release to qualify for the awards, and bank on it winning the awards so that they can do a wide release of an "award-winning" film.
thanks for the clarification-- i hadn't even realized it was on netflix until after i'd seen it in the theater
I really enjoyed The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. If you like the Coen Brothers, you should definitely watch it.
Lots of people in the FighterZ community now say they're "birdboxing" their opponents with blind mixups which I think is more culturally significant than anything the movies up for best picture put up, save Black Panther.
Roma
Hollywood has a long history of trying to control distribution. In fact they did, until a 1948 Supreme Court ruling forced the studios to sell their ownership in movie theater chains.
Netflix irritates the old studio heavyweights because they basically started as a lowest-rung distributor (they used to ship rental DVDs around by mail — how entirely devoid of film business glamour!), then slowly and cleverly built themselves up into an immensely wealthy studio, thus reconstructing the tight production-distribution bond that was forbidden to the old studios. Admitting Netflix productions to Oscars is like salt in their wounds.
Netflix irritates the old studio heavyweights because they basically started as a lowest-rung distributor (they used to ship rental DVDs around by mail — how entirely devoid of film business glamour!), then slowly and cleverly built themselves up into an immensely wealthy studio, thus reconstructing the tight production-distribution bond that was forbidden to the old studios. Admitting Netflix productions to Oscars is like salt in their wounds.
Having watched some/plenty of Netflix movies (imho) they are flat, lack substance. Just as a point of reference/to make a comparison, one of my favourite movies is The Fountain (Darren Aronofsky). Maybe some of the Netflix movies got the big names (e.g. Ed Harris - Kodachrome), but they feel like one-dimensional.
Cinematography and cinemas keep people give people jobs, not only while MAKING the movie (cast and crews), but for people to watch it as well. Cinemas (the actual venues) give people jobs, the crews that work there, make pop-corn, sell tickets, cleaning crews, etc.
Netflix wants us to sit on our couches and binge/rot-away [1]. The two experiences (cinema vs netflix) are not even close.
[1]: https://twitter.com/netflix/status/854100194098520064
Edit: I am not negating the usefulness of Netflix, HBO, and other online/serving platforms. But if you want to play the movies-game, you have to win it on THEIR rules. Otherwise make your own 'oscarZ' and go wild :)
Cinematography and cinemas keep people give people jobs, not only while MAKING the movie (cast and crews), but for people to watch it as well. Cinemas (the actual venues) give people jobs, the crews that work there, make pop-corn, sell tickets, cleaning crews, etc.
Netflix wants us to sit on our couches and binge/rot-away [1]. The two experiences (cinema vs netflix) are not even close.
[1]: https://twitter.com/netflix/status/854100194098520064
Edit: I am not negating the usefulness of Netflix, HBO, and other online/serving platforms. But if you want to play the movies-game, you have to win it on THEIR rules. Otherwise make your own 'oscarZ' and go wild :)
None of this gives a legitimate reason to exclude their works from the Oscars. Unless they are to become a valueless celebration of media oligarchs, the awards should be awarded on merit - if Netflix productions are as low-quality as you assert, it should not matter whether they are eligible for the Oscars.
I'm not sure you'll find a receptive audience on HN for cinemas as a job creation exercise.
There's something to be said for movie theatres as an experience or an event, but it's a stretch to argue that overcharging for popcorn and hot dogs are a public good.
There's something to be said for movie theatres as an experience or an event, but it's a stretch to argue that overcharging for popcorn and hot dogs are a public good.
Startups exist as job creation exercise for programmers. Or do you really think we need 100 tiktok clones?
If everyone thinks like you (hopefully not for variety sake) then they won't win any awards. However, banning them from movie awards (they do make movies) is not the answer.
I agree with the general critique about Netflix movies. Although it is equally valid for Spielberg films in my opinion.
Today, if I think about Hollywood, I have to think about remakes. You have to force me to watch another Marvel/DC movie, although I think they are generally very well made and I liked some characters as a kid.
Just look at the most successful Hollywood movies of 2018. There is absolutely no depth to be found here at all.
These are movies I can enjoy, but mostly while doing something on the side.
Today, if I think about Hollywood, I have to think about remakes. You have to force me to watch another Marvel/DC movie, although I think they are generally very well made and I liked some characters as a kid.
Just look at the most successful Hollywood movies of 2018. There is absolutely no depth to be found here at all.
These are movies I can enjoy, but mostly while doing something on the side.
Even deadpool? I'm getting marvel/dc fatigue as well, but damn I can't get enough Deadpool -- fucking hilarious.
As far as depth, I can't think of a Netflix film I really remember as standing out, now Serials --I can name a bunch: The OA, Stranger Things, Haunting of Hill House, etc -- they may not have found a groove yet w/ movies but they sure have w/ original series -- though they did hit a few snags too, their Marvel world sort of fell apart, and some characters were good, some totally were lame (Iron fist esp.).
As far as depth, I can't think of a Netflix film I really remember as standing out, now Serials --I can name a bunch: The OA, Stranger Things, Haunting of Hill House, etc -- they may not have found a groove yet w/ movies but they sure have w/ original series -- though they did hit a few snags too, their Marvel world sort of fell apart, and some characters were good, some totally were lame (Iron fist esp.).
Regardless of the spotty quality of netflix productions, film awards should be about expression in the medium, not the distribution channel.
If they are so bad, why are there people that feel threatened enough to ban them?
I think he's taking the wrong approach in his argument. Convincing people that a streaming movie should not be considered a movie seems like an impossible task. This apple is green, so it should be considered a pear.
The easier route would appear to be changing the rules for the Oscars to require a wide, long, exclusive theatrical release, or some other nomenclature which will preclude streaming services, or at least cost them a significant amount of money.
If that's what he wants for the Oscars then whatever, but trying to convince people that streaming movies are technically TV sounds ridiculous. Anyway, have at it, lest it quicken the Oscar's inevitable demise.
The easier route would appear to be changing the rules for the Oscars to require a wide, long, exclusive theatrical release, or some other nomenclature which will preclude streaming services, or at least cost them a significant amount of money.
If that's what he wants for the Oscars then whatever, but trying to convince people that streaming movies are technically TV sounds ridiculous. Anyway, have at it, lest it quicken the Oscar's inevitable demise.
I think you're on the right track with this. The issue, apparently, for Spielberg is the definition of a movie. From the article it seems that his definition includes the requirement that a film must be shown in theaters to be a movie. I don't think the average person thinks of movies that way. Especially not in today's world with Redbox and streaming services.
Personally, I never really thought about the definition right now, but I think a crude definition would include something regarding runtimes since I think part of what defines a movie is its length. You can do more with additional time than a 30 or 60 minute TV episode can do. However, you can do more with a miniseries or episodic TV over the long term with regards to character development, story arcs, etc. I think the definition of a movie has to be somewhere between the individual episode and the miniseries.
Personally, I never really thought about the definition right now, but I think a crude definition would include something regarding runtimes since I think part of what defines a movie is its length. You can do more with additional time than a 30 or 60 minute TV episode can do. However, you can do more with a miniseries or episodic TV over the long term with regards to character development, story arcs, etc. I think the definition of a movie has to be somewhere between the individual episode and the miniseries.
Length is a poor criterion. Movies used to be shorter than they are nowadays. Forty to fifty minutes wasn't unusual in the 1940s for cinema.
Spielberg’s definition of what a movie is seems to include “must be offered for viewing in a theatre”. I think that’s at odds with the general public’s conception of what a movie is.
Even more ridiculous when you consider all those voting for Oscar winners will have watched the contender movies on their home TV setups from specially provided BluRay screeners!
Most films are actually watched at specially arranged viewings in theaters in LA and NY. The studios cut back on mailers several years ago because they were the biggest difference of pirated movies.
However, it's not at odds with the general public's conception of what a cinema film and when I think Oscar, I always think cinema film. I also think irrelevant, but that's another story.
Please do this, in 20 years there will be no more Oscars, this would be an improvement.
Old man yells at cloud.
By the way Hollywood almost died before when TV happened in the 60s and they survived that.
By the way Hollywood almost died before when TV happened in the 60s and they survived that.
I find this hilarious. Streaming has much greater reach than theatre, so if Canute/Spielberg has his way, over time the Oscar nominees will become increasingly obscure to most people, diminishing the whole point of the award, which is publicity and money-making.
If getting people together in a room to watch is somehow important, the Oscars, Tonys, and the Opera awards should combine.
If getting people together in a room to watch is somehow important, the Oscars, Tonys, and the Opera awards should combine.
I think this is likely to go in the other direction where more and more movies find a way to release directly into our homes on streaming services. A single movie theater ticket costs more than a month of Netflix.
The theater experience is going to have to figure out what its USP is in the digital era. It's no longer enough to provide access to the movie.
Anecdote: my gf and her friends were gonna watch Roma on the couch until they found out it was playing at the nearest theater. They then had to devise a plan to sneak alcohol and candy into the theater, coordinate ticket purchasing using venmo, and actually head out into the rain to get there. There was a lot of buyer's remorse. Good luck, theaters.
The theater experience is going to have to figure out what its USP is in the digital era. It's no longer enough to provide access to the movie.
Anecdote: my gf and her friends were gonna watch Roma on the couch until they found out it was playing at the nearest theater. They then had to devise a plan to sneak alcohol and candy into the theater, coordinate ticket purchasing using venmo, and actually head out into the rain to get there. There was a lot of buyer's remorse. Good luck, theaters.
Movie theaters will lose popularity but the theater experience cannot be reproduced in the home at least for the foreseeable future.
I don't see many films in theaters because many films gain nothing by being viewed at the theater. I often see films in like Interstellar, Dunkirk, Blade Runner, etc that are an assault on the senses and have a lot to gain through theater viewing.
The question to me is- will people care? There are plenty of examples of people shirking quality for convenience.
I don't see many films in theaters because many films gain nothing by being viewed at the theater. I often see films in like Interstellar, Dunkirk, Blade Runner, etc that are an assault on the senses and have a lot to gain through theater viewing.
The question to me is- will people care? There are plenty of examples of people shirking quality for convenience.
The only things I found not reproducable at home were loudness levels that hurt my ears, sticky floors and inconsiderate people talking during the movie and leaving before the credits stopped rolling.
Yea, this is another thing I've been thinking about. Of course Spielberg would prefer the 'cinema' experience since the only way he experiences cinema is private viewings or gala premiers at state of the art luxury theaters, surrounded by film connoisseurs and with people serving you vintage champagne. I wonder when he last had a 'genuine' cinema experience like the one your average middle class family experiences.
"Movie theaters will lose popularity but the theater experience cannot be reproduced in the home at least for the foreseeable future."
I heard a similar argument about the (live acting) theaters. Those are still around, sure.
I heard a similar argument about the (live acting) theaters. Those are still around, sure.
[deleted]
Not defending Spielberg, but I would have spent $$$ to see Roma in the cinema. Off the charts cinematography.
Not because he is good a something he is good at understanding the evolution.
Dahoon(14)
This would be a good opportunity for Netflix and Amazon and other streaming services to team up and start their own awards show.