|
Post by JangoB on Mar 2, 2019 8:44:24 GMT
Waiting for pacinoyes rant in 1, 2, 3... Nothing in that article states that he wants to 'own Hollywood', gray_tittes007! The Beard just wants movies to be shown in, you know, movie theatres and to qualify for Oscars only with a proper theatrical release. Which makes sense to me. And not just to me but to those other huge filmmakers who come to Netflix for help - Cuaron, Coens, Scorsese. There's a reason they want a theatrical release for their movies with Scorsese specifically asking for wide theatrical release of "The Irishman". But again, it's mainly about the rules of Oscar qualification and I do think that those need to be established.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 2, 2019 9:42:21 GMT
Well, I mean everyone knows I'm on the Netflix side but to try to keep my ranting to a minimum - I'm on the side of Netflix here and I think they've already won the war but they want into that group......... so they'll do what it takes - so let the zillionaires hash it out, ok, fine. I will say this debate is a short-sighted one with a whole industry fighting one company (feels very much like Tucker, the Coppola film) because the movies are dying (not Netflix's fault), the Oscars are on life support themselves (at best), and I am not happy about that since I (clearly, pathologically) love movies. I just feel this energy could be applied to more creative, mutually beneficial solutions instead of this posturing "Oh boy, Netflix is in trouble now, Spielberg and theater chains are going to get 'em!" but alas, the lack of creativity in problem solving is equivalent to their film artistry now with 5 time remakes and lucrative Indiana Jones merchandising agreements etc.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 2, 2019 12:12:24 GMT
While Spielberg does kind of come across as an old man yelling at a cloud, I see where he's coming from. I understand that he's trying to preserve the theatrical experience....and that's a worthwhile cause.
Streaming is the future. Netflix and all the rivals that currently exist or are popping up will make billions upon billions from their business model. But they have no God given right to win or be nominated for Oscars. If a change in Academy nominating rules forces some of these streaming giants to maintain a theatrical distribution arm because they are desperate for some Oscar kudos, then Spielberg may well be doing the industry a favor by putting his head above the water with this move.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 2, 2019 15:09:14 GMT
I would be fine with the Academy rules regarding theatrical distribution asking for these major companies to do more to exhibit and promote their films in theaters. But it shouldn't just be a Netflix thing, it should apply to all the major studios. After all, Spielberg had no problem with The Post having a super-limited distribution in only, what, 20 theaters just to qualify for Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 2, 2019 22:07:49 GMT
Bitch move Spielberg.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Mar 2, 2019 22:16:34 GMT
This is so stupid. Roma and Buster Scruggs had a qualifying run in 2018, so they were eligible. If they're gonna punish Netflix, they should punish every distributor that gives movies an Oscar-qualifying run in november/december and only opens wide in january. And if they're gonna make the theatrical run longer/wider, than they should think how this is going to affect the indies, foreign movies and documentaries.
And it's so ironic that, at the end of the day, it's coming from Spielberg, who owns home-video, DVD and the internet for his long shelf-life. Most of us didn't get to "appreciate his true art at the movies", we saw E.T. or Indiana Jones in a VHS tape growing up. Does that mean we saw lesser movies? Sure, the theatre-going experience is always superior, but watching a movie at home doesn't rob the picture its magic. Otherwise, I should prefer Avengers to The Godfather, 'cause that's the one I saw in the big screen.
The most frustrating thing about it all is that we all know, deep down, that this conversation is about money, and they're just using "artistic intregrity" as a red herring. Half of the film industry is looking at Amazon and Netflix, wondering "how can we make money out of this?" and trying to delay the inevitable, and the other half is thinking "hell yeah! We're going all-in in the streaming industry and making loads of money".
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Mar 3, 2019 3:24:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Mar 3, 2019 3:30:43 GMT
he's clearly pressed that he didn't get to watch Roma and Buster Scruggs in theaters.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Mar 3, 2019 5:00:02 GMT
I'm undecided on this, but it does seem a bit odd that internet movies are considered eligible when TV movies and even TV shows/episodes aren't. I also think it's important to protect the medium and the theatrical experience by incentivizing theatrical release so that the cinema does not completely die out at some point down the line. We're losing all our communal experiences in favor of people doing things by themselves in the dark in front of a computer screen and I say that even as one of the biggest introverts imaginable.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 3, 2019 5:23:03 GMT
It's weird for me to see so many reactions on the interwebs which seem to think that Spielberg's mission is to destroy Netflix, to prevent those smaller Netflix movies from being made and so on. He's literally just talking about what should and shouldn't qualify for Oscars which is a question on his mind because he's a board member. He's not running around screaming 'LET'S DESTROY FUCKING NETFLIX, AAARGH'. It's just an Oscar rules thing. Which may seem silly since it's all just a big game anyway. But it's not really particularly far-reaching. And immediately makes it clear that far more folks care about Oscars than they seem to suggest
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Mar 3, 2019 5:23:17 GMT
Paul Schrader just posted this on Facebook, thought it was worth sharing:
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Mar 3, 2019 5:59:24 GMT
Schrader's vision is much less cynical and more honest - and it highlights why the way Spielberg is making his statement is so hypocritical. What Schrader says makes sense because the way A24 sells its movies should be the Hollywood standart - stream or traditional studio. Weinstein killed off and dumped many movies once they failed to be his ideal Oscar bait. Amazon gave up on Suspiria once it didn't get universal acclaim on Venice, and every single choice they did about that movie screamed "resentment". Searchlight is bolder than most, but they put out less movies.
A24, on the other hand, commits to its weird little movies. They drove Lady Bird's female helmer into a BD nod, and they got this tiny movie about a gay black dude a BP prize. Their biggest hit is a gory horror movie that no one could have sold. They never gave up on First Reformed. A24 might be "hipster", "pretentious" or whatever you wanna call it, but it's the only studio that truly fights to deliver its movies to a passionate audience. If the head of this company was saying "hey, what about changing the rules so our small, risky movies can have some advantage?", it'd make sense.
But no. It's Spielberg, the safest and least-interesting of the canonical auteurs, who spent this whole season rallying for fucking Green Book, and whose every movie gets loads of money in the box-office. This guy wants to exclude Netflix right after it has a movie with 10 Oscar nominations. It's not a coincidence, it is a crusade - one that's about money and disguises itself as a way of "protecting the medium". It's not about protecting risky movies for him, it's about giving the big studios that finance him one last breath. If he were interested in giving the Roma's and Beasts of No Nation's longer exposure to the public, he would put his money where his mouth is and idk... maybe produce movies like that? Everything Spielberg has produced this decade has been pretty much franchises and big budget movies.
A few years ago, I was completely on the anti-Netflix side of the debacle, but it's just so obvious how greedy this whole conversation has become.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 3, 2019 15:21:42 GMT
I'm undecided on this, but it does seem a bit odd that internet movies are considered eligible when TV movies and even TV shows/episodes aren't. I also think it's important to protect the medium and the theatrical experience by incentivizing theatrical release so that the cinema does not completely die out at some point down the line. We're losing all our communal experiences in favor of people doing things by themselves in the dark in front of a computer screen and I say that even as one of the biggest introverts imaginable. It’s a natural evolution that makes sense. I love the cinematic experience as much as the next guy but let’s not act that it’s not without it’s negatives (distracting patrons talking or on there phone, parking, forced into specific viewing periods). And how much am I losing when I watch a movie at home on my large screen tv with Bose surround sound? Especially when I can also pause the movie to go to the bathroom or get another drink, and start it when I want after my kids go to bed without needing a babysitter. And can you even buy a tv today that doesn’t have Netflix built in? Who’s still watching it on their computers?
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 4, 2019 2:12:33 GMT
Well, he's not hating on Amazon. What's wrong with just being eligible for an Emmy?
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 4, 2019 2:18:00 GMT
Call me a purist but if you're gonna put something on Netflix first then it should be running for Emmys and not Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 4, 2019 2:25:37 GMT
Call me a purist but if you're gonna put something on Netflix first then it should be running for Emmys and not Oscars. Roma was released two weeks prior to Netflix release. I believe Netflix does the same day release in order to bypass the premiere rule for both Emmys and Oscars. The rub with Netflix winning best picture is that you have to subscribe to service if you want to see it. Amazon on the other hand, will rent you the movie without being a Prime member.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Mar 4, 2019 2:31:20 GMT
-fuck the oscars for, like, a million reasons by this pt -fuck spielberg for being a money hungry out of touch kazillionaire who wants to get more money and (presumably) look more out of touch -fuck this notion that watching films in theaters is the end all experience when most of the world will never watch 99% of films in existence in one -fuck netflix for being a conglomerate that will almost surely become disney levels of fucked up in the next 10-15 years
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 4, 2019 5:30:13 GMT
-fuck the oscars for, like, a million reasons by this pt -fuck spielberg for being a money hungry out of touch kazillionaire who wants to get more money and (presumably) look more out of touch -fuck this notion that watching films in theaters is the end all experience when most of the world will never watch 99% of films in existence in one -fuck netflix for being a conglomerate that will almost surely become disney levels of fucked up in the next 10-15 years The bitterness and jealousy is oozing out.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Mar 4, 2019 8:47:49 GMT
I would post in support of Spielberg except for the fact that almost every movie released these days, regardless of platform, is utter trash lmao
movies are dead, we're just sucking the juice out the crumbs
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Mar 4, 2019 18:04:45 GMT
I would post in support of Spielberg except for the fact that almost every movie released these days, regardless of platform, is utter trash lmao movies are dead, we're just sucking the juice out the crumbs It is time for the resurgence of epic poetry.
|
|
speeders
Based
Posts: 4,093
Likes: 2,211
|
Post by speeders on Mar 4, 2019 22:46:47 GMT
Yet Spielberg doesn't seem to take an issue with sending DVD screeners to the Academy, that's how most of the members watch his and other films.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 5, 2019 1:33:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Mar 5, 2019 1:43:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 5, 2019 2:39:40 GMT
Great clapback, but also like the first reply noting despite Netflix's "love" for cinema, there's hardly any pre-1970s films on its platform.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 5, 2019 3:54:37 GMT
That's great but what does that have to do with awards?
|
|