The idea that “movie” must mean “recorded visual & aural media on a large screen in a public theater” is so ridiculously out-of-date I can’t believe anyone would try and argue in favor of it.
As you know, AMPAS represents the major Hollywood studios, whose interests are closely tied to the theater chains that operate over 40,000 multiplex screens in the US and over 100,000 worldwide. Although home video makes up an increasingly larger portion of their revenues, the studios - - and obviously the theaters - - still have a large vested interest in preserving the distinction between cinema and TV. And there really is a difference between a show that is intended to be seen on a 70-foot-wide theater screen and on a 40-inch TV or an iPhone.
Besides, we already have awards for television and Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc already qualify for those awards. What’s the point of the Emmys if you’re going to say “I saw Two Broke Girls on my 70” home theater so now it’s a short film"? Sure the distinction may become increasingly arbitrary (though I think people claiming it so now are fooling themselves) but it’s an awards show so they can slap whatever arbitrary criteria they want on it. The only reason to get your undies rustled over not competing for an Oscar and having to “settle” for an Emmy is that the Oscar is seen as more prestigious or exclusive which won’t be the case if anything on your home television qualifies under “Well, it’s all the same”.
I can see that film is a separate art form to serial or series based entertainment, but basing eligibility on screen size or viewing medium is starting to feel pretty redundant, in a 20th century way. Nonetheless, in the UK, BAFTA sticks with tradition:
TV BAFTAS:
Film BAFTAS:
Full rules, plus gaming, documentary, etc: Entry Information | BAFTA Awards
Battlestar Galactica
Buck Rogers in the 25th Century
H.R. Pufnstuf
He’s right, but they also shouldn’t allow Netflix shows in the Emmys, they’re on the internet, not TV (even if you use a set top box or smart tv).
That’s just the Television Academy seeing the handwriting on the wall.
Originally Posted by mbh
…
When I was a kid, it was not uncommon for the pilot episode of a TV show to get a theatrical release.
…
battlestar galatica the original version …
No, there isn’t, seeing as all of them come out in home video eventually. Everything has to be designed to work on a small screen or a large one, since you can’t control the screen size.
Plus, by the time a movie gets an Oscar, they’re already out of theaters, so you’re only going to go buy it for home video anyways.
This is what I wrote: “And there really is a difference between a show that is intended to be seen on a 70-foot-wide theater screen and on a 40-inch TV or an iPhone.”
I’ve highlighted the key word. You are right that most films are made with home video release in mind, which often calls for some compromises, but you’re wrong in thinking that means that there is no difference.
David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia
Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey
Ron Howard’s Far and Away
Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet
Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy and Dunkirk
Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight
All these films were shot on 70mm film and were intended by their filmmakers to be projected in 70mm in a theater on a large screen. The later directors knew they would eventually be seen on TV screens, but they crafted the films for the large screen, not for TV. Note also that many, if not all, of these titles have had occasional theatrical re-release, often in 70mm.
Conversely, the makers of any great TV show you can name, The Wire (which was shot 4:3, not 16:9), Breaking Bad, House of Cards, etc., did not have theatrical release in mind, and their images lack the scale and majesty of the films I’ve listed above. They are great TV shows, but not great films.
There is a difference.
This is 2018 though. There’s a big difference between bemoaning the disappearance of 70mm films and theatres with the capacity to project them, and claiming that they are the norm for “theatre” films, or are representative about what Spielberg calls “cinema”.
I’m pretty certain even among Academy voters more saw Dunkirk in a home theatre than in 70mm or it might have done better. Spielberg doesn’t have a leg to stand on, he knows the same HD cameras and production software are being used to make Netflix shows, feature-length movies especially. The obverse of his argument would be to say that streaming and Blu-ray releases of “theatre” films are only a compromised adaptation of theatrical releases and shouldn’t be released this way, but only seen in theatres. Pretty ridiculous. Spielberg may love the past, but can’t possibly still be living there, he was just looking for publicity because he has a movie out.
the DOJ is stepping in saying that idea might have problems MSN