At the next academy govenors meeting Steven Spielberg is going to argue that movies made by streaming services aren’t cinema there television and should be banned from the Oscars and the “limited releases” are an end run around the rules
heres the article :MSN
Is he right or wrong ?
I agree that Netflix movies like Roma or Buster Scruggs with very limited theatrical releases (just enough to technically meet the rules for awards purposes) are not the same thing as wide release movies, and that awards for the latter have a right to re-write their rules to exclude the former.
However, I think that modern audiences in the era of big-screen TVs and expensive ticket prices increasingly don’t care much about the distinction (I’d rather watch a movie at home any day!), and don’t give much of a damn about old-fogeyish, politicized, increasingly out-of-touch and irrelevant institutions like the Oscars (Green Book wins best picture in 2019?! - LOL) - and that people like Spielberg should be thinking more about that…
He is certainly free to do what he wants in terms of the rules for what is eligible for an oscar. I’m doubtful no longer being in contention for oscars would slow Netflix’s film production pipeline.
I think Mr. Spielberg needs to get the fuck over himself.
TV movies aren’t disease-of-the-week soapy dramas starring Dean Cain and Valerie Bertinelli anymore. If they are worthy of award attention, they should be considered feature films, wherever they broadcast.
Or make up new categories. Documentaries, short films, animation… have their own, after all.
I don’t see how a given film’s artistic/popular merit has anything to do with whether or not it’s presented in an obsolete format from 100 years ago.
Filming for a big screen, ideally to be watched once in an unbroken sitting, is a different art to filming for a small screen, designed to be watched multiple times and paused or only half-watched while doing other things. Making a compelling TV film is probably harder overall, but it’s as different from Cinema as Theatre is.
Whether the Oscars choose to include them or not is up to them, but it would be a large, significant change.
With Roma, it was made as a theatrical film. Netflix did not agree to distribute it until it was done. It ran in theaters for eight weeks. The only thing different from any other independent film was that it was available for streaming much earlier after its release than usual. Why penalize the people who worked in it because they made the best deal possible from their distributor?
Buster Scruggs is more of an issue, since it was clearly made for TV. The Academy did make changes to their rules for animated short in 1960 when the made-for-Tv A Christmas Carol won.
But the two examples show the difficulty of defining what “made for TV” means.
The best solution is to keep current rules and let the Academy decide by their votes.
They probably also should switch to ranked choice ballots, but that’s a different issue.
Your poll options are very confusing.
If “Roma” had never been on Netflix, but had merely gotten a limited theatrical release, it would have been eligible for the Oscars anyway. So what Spielberg et al. are arguing is not that the requirement for theatrical release be increased, but that movies NOT be allowed to be shown on streaming services first. The rules made no difference whatsoever to the size of the theatrical release Roma or Buster Scruggs got… well, if anything, it’s why they got any theatrical release at all.
Look, let’s be perfectly honest about why Steven Spielberg wants Netflix movies banned from the Oscars. It comes down to two things:
He’s old. Spielberg is 72, and so has passed the age when he can adapt to liking new things. Streaming is not like it was in his Good Old Days, and Those Darned Kids won’t get off his lawn. Old people (and some people get older a lot younger than others) simply don’t like it when things change. To Spielberg, a movie is by definition a thing that you first see in a theatre that sells overpriced popcorn, because that is how it was when he was 12. To call something you first see in your living room a movie is an insult to him. That is Television, which is a lesser art form, because it WAS a lesser art form when he was 12. The idea that those distinctions might not be relevant anymore isn’t something he is capable of understanding.
It gives a chance to lower budget, indie, lesser known films to win Oscars that Spielberg thinks he and his friends should win.
The world is passing him by. It’s inevitable.
Ok, I’m not the only one. I didn’t vote for this reason, but I couldn’t give any less of a shit as to the method of release or format of the movie. I am fine with Netflix and other streaming or digital format movies being eligible for the Academy Awards, but the last movie I saw at the actual cinema was almost fifteen years ago, so perhaps I’m not the best to ask for an opinion.
I’m with Spielberg on this one, but then again I’m fiftysomething so I may be one of the old fogies some of you are criticizing. Sure, perhaps if you have a dedicated room in your house with a really big direct view HDTV or a projector and projection screen, you can approximate the experience of watching a movie in your home. But many of us have the HDTV in the same room as lots of other things that distract from the experience or can’t really get the room as dark as we’d like. Many people watch Netflix content on their smartphone screens, which is really far from a theatrical experience. So I still go to the movies for a different experience than staying home and watching a DVD, streamed title or something on cable.
And another problem with Netflix’s approach is that it refused to provide box office information about Roma, which isn’t how the business works. It’s now a member of the MPAA so it should play by the same rules as everyone else.
This is silly on numerous levels.
Most Documentary/Film Shorts awards are seen on far fewer screens than “Roma” is. Has anyone seen a Film Short anywhere outside a “OScar Nominees” festival?
Most Oscar voters see the films on DVD screeners, not in the theater.
TV broadcasters such as Britain’s Channel Four fund a lot of Oscar winners. Check this list of Channel Four productions. I recognize 12 Years a Slave, The Iron Lady, Slumdog Milliionare, and Amy just off the bat as Oscar winners that they had a role in producing.
As long as they fill the requirement of playing for one week in a theater, it should make no difference who produced the film. That is silly.
Sure, and those films got full theatrical releases, including reporting box office results. None of this releasing the movie for only one week in one theater in Los Angeles.
I would think the issue is self-regulating. If enough Academy members agree with Speilberg, then streaming movies will stop getting nominated. No rule change needed.
However, I strongly suspect that won’t be the case, and I’m OK with that. The Oscars are meant to celebrate excellence in filmmaking, and the method with which the public views the films should be irrelevant.
The members of the Academy evidently thought highly enough of Roma as an exercise in the art of film making to give Cuarón the Award for Best Director.
And if indeed it was conceived and filmed as a theatrical film, and then *afterwards *there was the business decision to distribute through streaming, then that they’d release on streaming immediately rather than wait however many months should not affect the qualifications if it meets the Academy’s requirements.
But even if expected to be put on streaming from the start, as mentioned by RickJay Roma complied with those same requirements for theatrical release as have been made of every other contender. If the consensus were to look down on something as inferior because of the form, timing and scale of release, even when those are within the requirements to qualify for that year’s Awards, then this would have been reflected by the Academy’s own votes (making the requirements a farce). No one forces them to acknowledge one or another film. So what is the detractors’ logic – that unless the movie depends on teater box office *first *to be a hit or a flop, then it is not a “real” movie?
Should this matter to me? Or the Oscars?
If it doesn’t matter to you, why are you even reading this thread?