Bull.
Again, tell me what the difference is between an independent film which has a short qualifying theatrical run, and a film produced by Netflix that plays for weeks in theaters before appearing on their streaming service.
As long as a film plays in theaters, it is eligible and the only difference is who produced it, which again is a stupid and silly distinction.
(BTW, HBO produced documentaries have been nominated for Oscars.)
I don’t see this as being any different than dropping Oscar bait movies in a limited release in December to qualify for the award. That’s been done for decades.
As always, follow the money. And right now, “streaming” studios are spending more on production than “theatrical” studios. And money talks–talented actors, directors, and crews are making streamed content because they’re paying right now. The old studios don’t have the big budgets anymore; they’ve been reduced to one or two tentpoles and a handful of smaller productions. Netflix is making everything and something for everyone. YouTube is producing a lot of its own content, too.
Sure, some purists are going to complain, but they’ll die off while the talent and newcomers work where the money is.
The theatrical distributors have become over leveraged vs theaters. Very soon, they’ll not be able to get a premium share of tickets sales in the first weeks. Netflix will put movies into theaters by giving them a much better deal on ticket sales. Theatrical showings will simply be marketing because the profit is in the monthly subscriptions. I wouldn’t be surprised if Netflix started offering theatrical tickets for its movies to its subscribers (think “theater tier” subscriptions).
I think the big TV difference is generally the presence of commercial breaks; I would imagine that places a different stress on scene arrangement and pacing of the story than knowing your audience is going to be captive and watching for about 2 hours.
I kind of think the streaming sites are kind of a neither fish nor fowl thing here, in that a lot of them are a lot higher budget, and have bigger named stars and a lot higher production values than your average “made for TV movie”.
Then again, when was the last time one of the big four broadcast networks actually produced and showed a made for TV movie? Seems to me that niche has been filled by Hallmark, Lifetime, and SyFy.
I suspect that the reason the cinema types want to exclude the streaming services’ movies is because they feel this is one more way to cut the actual movie theaters out of the picture, and they’re big cinema people themselves.
Usually, though, that’s followed up by a wide release in the new year.
Wide-ish. Many have been arthouse movies and not blockbusters. For many years those movies have gone quickly to DVD or on demand. Now they have streaming. Despite being in the movie business for 50 years Speilberg doesn’t seem to understand all movies are not like the blockbusters he makes.
And some only go wide after the nominations are announced.
Kind of reminds me of Hugos which added a ‘media’ (non-print in fan speak) award in 1959, then expanded it into Long Form and Short Form in 2003 after the good TV series (i.e. ST:TNG and Babylon 5) started getting popular.
Spielberg’s an asshole.
Dammit, this is funny.
Oh! Snap! 
This is the case. It’s about a fair playing field. If Spielberg makes a movie and no one watches it, the movie is a disaster and he’s in serious trouble. He is required by the nature of theater releases to make something that is commercially viable. Streaming studios don’t have to do that. Their goal is not to actually get someone to watch a film, but rather to make them think that their subscription to the service is valuable and worth continuing. A film like Roma is impossible to make for a studio who wants to release it commercially. It’s a Spanish language film made in black and white that is a drama period piece. It could be the greatest movie ever made and no one is going to the theater to see it. Spielberg has probably had dozens of similar ideas and knows that largely they just aren’t doable. So what is worrying him is that we will see a rise of a new type of movie which is essentially ‘big-budget art house’ that will make it impossible for ‘normal’ movies to compete in the Oscars.
Yeah, I came in just to say that. Show something a half-hour long in theaters? It’s short-form. Show something two hours long on TV? It’s long-form.
Of course, the Hugos are in a genre that’s known for pushing boundaries, so they have a higher-than-normal proportion of weird edge cases. Like, if you have a comic strip that’s actually a silent movie played in extreme slow-motion, and it’s great science fiction, they’ll figure out some way to shoehorn it into some category.
Exactly.
And plus, we will all benefit if the Oscars lose their status and prestige. The whole Oscars phenomenon has distorted the entire movie industry to audiences’ detriment. It’s why we have these strict “seasons” for movie releases. It’s why studios only invest in “quality” movies if they are also willing to double or triple their investment for promotion and Oscars campaigning.
The whole thing is stupid.
Because I’m interested in the subject. I don’t really care about box office.
Emmy, Golden Globe, SAG, Independent Spirit, Critic’s Choice, People’s Choice, etc… There are endless awards shows for movies of all kinds.
Just not the Oscars. Those are for theatrical release movies.
Explain how Roma and Buster Scruggs were not theatrical release movies.
He’s right.
“Manchester By the Sea,” which was nominated for Best Picture a few years back, was an Amazon movie.
Martin Scorsese’s next film, “The Irishman,” with Robert DeNiro & Al Pacino, is a Netflix film that will have a theatrical run.
But sure, these are just “TV movies.” :rolleyes: Spielberg is just pissy that he has competition.
Amazon gave that film a full theatrical release, including releasing box office results. Spielberg and others are asking Netflix to do the same.
As for the new Scorsese film, I’ll quote myself.
To be fair, Roma was a B&W Spanish-language film about a Mexican domestic worker. It might not have had much success outside the art-house circuit. On the other hand, The Irishman is an English-language Mafia picture, directed by Martin Scorsese and starring De Niro and Pacino. It’s likely to have much broader appeal. But the point is that Netflix didn’t even try releasing Roma widely, and they certainly didn’t publish box office results.
There are awards for TV. If it doesn’t ever play in a theater it shouldn’t be eligible for an Oscar.