|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jul 4, 2019 1:14:08 GMT
These guilds and academy's need to wake up and realise that times are very, very quickly changing and the best film of the year or best directed film of the year...or the best film anything of the year, should not need to hit cinemas for any specified length of time to be considered. Most awards properties need to seriously revise their ideals, as they have become increasingly outdated, particularly in the 2010s. I wonder if every DGA voter sees every film in theaters before being eligible to vote. Somehow I doubt it.
Also, everytime I go to the cinema and some shitbird or birds is having no consideration for the audience on mass, it reminds me of just how unimportant the role of theatrical cinema is.
Then there's no difference between television and film. Completely against you on this. There is not at this point in regards to movies.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jul 4, 2019 1:20:50 GMT
I dunno, I do believe films should be released in cinemas. That's the traditional way. To me, it's either in cinemas or it's a TV-movie. And the awards shouldn't be given to TV-movies. Maybe I'm too traditional but that's the way I feel. Of course I don't mind the length of the theater window before the TV/platform release. Two weeks or a month or even three months, I don't care. In my country even the films that draw thousands of people in cinemas don't get a theatrical run more than 6-8 weeks (usually only 2-3 weeks). So I don't really mind about that. But a day-and-date release? That's not the traditional way movies should be seen. On the other hand, I disagree with all the paranoia around that matter. I don't know what they're trying to achieve by banning these films from award consideration. Preserve the classic format of movie watching and the viability of the theaters? Naaahh... I don't think so. Maybe they're afraid that in a few years all the platforms will have become movie giants and take the audiences out of the theaters. It's not about traditional cinema, it's really a matter of money. Clinging to “the traditional way” of doing anything is asinine. Like it or hate it, Netflix and other streaming services and changed the game. And likewise, the definition of TV movie has also changed. More and more the best talent is going to be creating movies on these platforms. Is it really worth keeping them out of the conversation because lesser movies were in a theater? Also, all of these awards are being seen on screeners for voting, so what’s the difference? Not too mention the majority of all people watch more movies at their house than in a theater.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jul 4, 2019 1:23:11 GMT
I don't see much purpose in rehashing the same points as last time because there didn't seem to be a lot of people changing their minds when we last debated this, but-- To cling to a distinction between "theatrical film" and "TV film" makes no sense to me, and it will only become more and more pointless in the future as people continue to change the ways they consume content and those lines become increasingly blurred. Martin is absolutely right: what may or may not be about to become the highest grossing film of all time worldwide is the 22nd installment in an episodic adventure series that's even divided into phases, much like a television show is divided into seasons; meanwhile, one of the most popular TV/streaming phenomenons of the decade consists of a string of stand-alone works that clock in at feature length. Consumers don't care about labels, and awards groups ought to keep up with the times if they don't intend to vanish altogether. People don't watch movies in 2019 the way they did in 1927, so the criteria we use to classify cinema today and decide what qualifies for what list/what award don't have to be identical to the ones that were used back when the awards were introduced. Every film is a TV film after it leaves theaters. I know most people in this board aren't going to a theater 50-100 times a year, so most of our cinematic consumption is done through other means. Likewise, unless you guys only have 21st century titles in your top 20/50/100 of all time, chances are you never got a chance to watch the majority of your favorite movies on the big screen and therefore experienced them as ~TV films. Why get so hung up on a technicality when we ourselves routinely skip the theatrical experience altogether? What's the point in caring whether at some point in human history the stuff that you're watching in your living room played in movie theaters somewhere in the world that you've never set foot in? If you watch the season's Oscar contenders in the same screen where you watch Netflix/HBO original movies, then why do you have different categories for them? How does that change the content itself? A blockbuster that plays in 4,000 theaters and grosses a billion dollars is cinema; a tiny indie that plays in 2 theaters in LA/NY is cinema; zero-budget amateur features edited on iMovie and uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo are cinema. If we're gonna talk about Emmys, it makes far more sense for TV awards to honor long-format content divided into episodes and seasons while movie awards honor... well, movies, regardless of how they were first broadcast; the type/format of content itself should be the criterion, not the screen in which it's exhibited. (And by the way, even that suggestion is still completely arbitrary; if someone believes Twin Peaks: The Return is the best film of 2017, who am I to say otherwise? Who cares what the word "film" means?) To be clear: it's one thing to discuss the value of the theatrical experience vs. the convenience of streaming. That's a separate conversation, and my opinion is that there's room for both. But if we're talking about awards ceremonies that less and less people give a shit about, blocking films because "it didn't use to be like that" is a great way to sink your relevance even further. To repeat what I said in that older thread: if the Academy wants to keep Scorsese, the Coens and Cuarón out of the party because of the exact number of days that their theatrical windows lasted, then more power to them. They're watching Peter Farrelly and Bryan Singer on digital screeners anyways. This is literally my thoughts, expressed more eloquently then I could put them. Seconded
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jul 4, 2019 1:28:10 GMT
To me the weird thing about this debate has always been that people have made it about the quality and the value of TV films vs. theatrical films as opposed to just a formal distinction. I think awards like the Oscars should absolutely stick to their guns and continue to reward only films with theatrical distribution because that's what the Oscars have always been about. TV has the Emmys. And I don't mean that as a diss in any way, shape or form. It's a pure technicality which these awards are filled with. Performances are divided into leading/supporting/male/female, scripts are divided into original/adapted - it's just a way to reward more achievements. I'm sure there could definitely exist a huge all-encompassing award ceremony that would blend all sorts of content together but no awards are obliged to do so. The DGA give awards for achievements in television so they've got that covered. Is some TV/streaming content as good/cinematic as theatrical films? Of course it bloody is. I watched three episodes of "Chernobyl" today and they were clearly better than most of the shit we see in theatres. But that ain't the point. Do I think "Chernobyl" should be viewed as a movie and should participate in movie award things? Hell no. And it's absolutely not a value judgment. It's just simply because it was made for television. Same about the endless "Twin Peaks" discussion - it's not a movie, it's an 18-part series. And it's a goddamn masterpiece. Which happened to be made for television as a TV series. And projects made for television get acknowledged by their own huge awards ceremony - the Emmys. To me that's the only thing that matters in this debate - what the project was made for. Of course if TV/streaming stations decide that they aren't happy with the Emmys (although I have no clue why - I guess even they believe in the 'TV ghetto' stigma which is just a stupid viewpoint in this day and age) and that their film should be released theatrically first to contend for the Oscars and stuff, then by all means they ought to do that if the release meets the eligibility standards set by the movie award. It's all just a big silly game anyway but games ought to have rules. In addition to everything Zeb said so greatly, a lot of these movies aren’t being made for television. A-list talent makes a movie and brings it to a festival and Netflix/Amazon are constantly in the running to win the bidding wars. Those movies in no ways should now be competing for Emmys rather than Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jul 4, 2019 2:22:42 GMT
To me the weird thing about this debate has always been that people have made it about the quality and the value of TV films vs. theatrical films as opposed to just a formal distinction. I think awards like the Oscars should absolutely stick to their guns and continue to reward only films with theatrical distribution because that's what the Oscars have always been about. TV has the Emmys. And I don't mean that as a diss in any way, shape or form. It's a pure technicality which these awards are filled with. Performances are divided into leading/supporting/male/female, scripts are divided into original/adapted - it's just a way to reward more achievements. I'm sure there could definitely exist a huge all-encompassing award ceremony that would blend all sorts of content together but no awards are obliged to do so. The DGA give awards for achievements in television so they've got that covered. Is some TV/streaming content as good/cinematic as theatrical films? Of course it bloody is. I watched three episodes of "Chernobyl" today and they were clearly better than most of the shit we see in theatres. But that ain't the point. Do I think "Chernobyl" should be viewed as a movie and should participate in movie award things? Hell no. And it's absolutely not a value judgment. It's just simply because it was made for television. Same about the endless "Twin Peaks" discussion - it's not a movie, it's an 18-part series. And it's a goddamn masterpiece. Which happened to be made for television as a TV series. And projects made for television get acknowledged by their own huge awards ceremony - the Emmys. To me that's the only thing that matters in this debate - what the project was made for. Of course if TV/streaming stations decide that they aren't happy with the Emmys (although I have no clue why - I guess even they believe in the 'TV ghetto' stigma which is just a stupid viewpoint in this day and age) and that their film should be released theatrically first to contend for the Oscars and stuff, then by all means they ought to do that if the release meets the eligibility standards set by the movie award. It's all just a big silly game anyway but games ought to have rules. I do agree that games ought to have rules, but I'd argue that the rules need to make sense, and that they should keep up with the times lest the games be rendered completely irrelevant to their target audiences. Theatrical releases were the only way that films could reach a wide audience back when the Oscars were introduced, but obviously that's not the case anymore thanks to TV, home media and now the internet. If theaters disappear entirely, the film industry will continue to exist, so there will still be Motion Picture Arts & Sciences™ to honor. The requirement that contenders be given a theatrical release existed purely because there was no alternative back then; it made sense in a different context, but doesn't anymore, so there's no problem with changing that rule. The Academy has changed its rules multiple times in the past as new needs arose and the game needed to be updated; categories have been removed and added according to the ways the industry has evolved over the decades, so the same could easily happen here to institute that streaming films be eligible. The vast majority of the people involved with movie awards (both within the voting bodies and in the wider cinephile community) aren't watching the contenders in theaters anyways, so unless we start demanding that voters actually prove that they saw the films they're voting for in a theatrical setting (say, by providing ticket stubs), I honestly don't see the purpose in having that rule. With that in mind, I'd say a much more reasonable criterion to divide between Oscar and Emmy qualifiers would be this: Oscars are for feature length motion pictures. Emmys are for long-format, episodic works. There. It's a rule, it's clear, and it makes sense. As it is now, we have the kind of gray areas that allow a miniseries to win an Oscar for Documentary Feature simply because it screened in theaters (I'm aware that the rules were later revised to prevent that from happening again, but still). Like I said: it makes more sense for the type/format of the content to be the deciding factor here, and not the screen in which it is exhibited, since the vast majority of Academy members watched the latest Best Picture winner in the same screens they use to watch Marie Kondo. This change is coming at some point, however much we try to delay it, simply because streaming cannot be stopped. It's no longer one or two films like it was a mere 3 years ago; Netflix, Amazon and Hulu will continue to get more and more A-list talent and to distribute more and more of the most acclaimed films of any given year going forward. My point is simply that the Academy will be shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to hold on to the old rules, because then they won't accurately reflect the ways that general audiences actually consume content, and they'll also be turning down a considerable portion of the titles that most casual moviegoers and especially we, the people who actually pay enough attention to this shit to run a board named "Movie Awards", actually take an interest in. How many of us are actually going to be typing out predictions and tuning in to watch the nail-biting race between Scorsese and Soderbergh for the 2020 Emmys? No shade against TV awards, but the Film Made for Television category is no Outstanding Drama/Comedy Series. (If it were, then more people would have seen San Junipero winning Best Film Made for Television and come to the conclusion that if season 3, episode 4 of Black Mirror can be campaigned as a feature-length motion picture and pick up a couple statues in the Best Film category, then the lines between feature film and long-format are no longer as clear and strict as they used to be.) A lot of very good points! I still kinda understand why the Academy is clinging on to that tradition of theirs while they have adapted to other changes in the past. And I especially get their stance because theatrical film-viewing isn't really quite dead yet. Sure it's got a lot of competition and sure a lot of people are consuming content in other ways but there's still a very healthy industry in theatrical distribution. And we gotta agree that a theatrical event movie cannot compare to a successful streaming film. The way people showed up to see Bohemian Rhapsody or Green Book, for instance, is probably enough proof to the Academy that they should stick with theatrical at this point in time. And your paragraph about our own attention to different awards ceremonies is where the issue really lies - some awards are put on a higher pedestal than the others even if it shouldn't really be this way. Winning an Emmy shouldn't be lesser than winning an Oscar but I perfectly understand that it is perceived to be so. And again, you mention Scorsese but it's clear that Netflix will do a qualifying run for The Irishman and there will be some kind of theatrical release on Scorsese's request (as I understand the situation). So they play along to the rules, no issue against them. I get that the Academy and the DGA may seem like dinosaurs because of their adherence to long-established traditions but I dunno, I can certainly respect that and I see a point in that. Let it be their trademark, their thing. Even if it may make'em seem too old-fashioned.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jul 4, 2019 2:24:08 GMT
Then there's no difference between television and film. Completely against you on this. There is not at this point in regards to movies. Then how do you differentiate between movies and tv movies?
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jul 4, 2019 2:26:37 GMT
To me the weird thing about this debate has always been that people have made it about the quality and the value of TV films vs. theatrical films as opposed to just a formal distinction. I think awards like the Oscars should absolutely stick to their guns and continue to reward only films with theatrical distribution because that's what the Oscars have always been about. TV has the Emmys. And I don't mean that as a diss in any way, shape or form. It's a pure technicality which these awards are filled with. Performances are divided into leading/supporting/male/female, scripts are divided into original/adapted - it's just a way to reward more achievements. I'm sure there could definitely exist a huge all-encompassing award ceremony that would blend all sorts of content together but no awards are obliged to do so. The DGA give awards for achievements in television so they've got that covered. Is some TV/streaming content as good/cinematic as theatrical films? Of course it bloody is. I watched three episodes of "Chernobyl" today and they were clearly better than most of the shit we see in theatres. But that ain't the point. Do I think "Chernobyl" should be viewed as a movie and should participate in movie award things? Hell no. And it's absolutely not a value judgment. It's just simply because it was made for television. Same about the endless "Twin Peaks" discussion - it's not a movie, it's an 18-part series. And it's a goddamn masterpiece. Which happened to be made for television as a TV series. And projects made for television get acknowledged by their own huge awards ceremony - the Emmys. To me that's the only thing that matters in this debate - what the project was made for. Of course if TV/streaming stations decide that they aren't happy with the Emmys (although I have no clue why - I guess even they believe in the 'TV ghetto' stigma which is just a stupid viewpoint in this day and age) and that their film should be released theatrically first to contend for the Oscars and stuff, then by all means they ought to do that if the release meets the eligibility standards set by the movie award. It's all just a big silly game anyway but games ought to have rules. In addition to everything Zeb said so greatly, a lot of these movies aren’t being made for television. A-list talent makes a movie and brings it to a festival and Netflix/Amazon are constantly in the running to win the bidding wars. Those movies in no ways should now be competing for Emmys rather than Oscars. If TV/streaming stations buy those movies and don't give them a theatrical release, they should absolutely be competing for Emmys. No matter how A-list the talent behind them was. That's part of the game and I don't see any problem with it. Like in any game, there has to be some qualification. And again, Emmys are for A-listers too, there's no shame in winning them. As there's no shame in being a TV movie, especially in a day and age when TV is at its best.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jul 4, 2019 2:32:40 GMT
There is not at this point in regards to movies. Then how do you differentiate between movies and tv movies? I don’t anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jul 4, 2019 2:37:20 GMT
In addition to everything Zeb said so greatly, a lot of these movies aren’t being made for television. A-list talent makes a movie and brings it to a festival and Netflix/Amazon are constantly in the running to win the bidding wars. Those movies in no ways should now be competing for Emmys rather than Oscars. If TV/streaming stations buy those movies and don't give them a theatrical release, they should absolutely be competing for Emmys. No matter how A-list the talent behind them was. That's part of the game and I don't see any problem with it. Like in any game, there has to be some qualification. And again, Emmys are for A-listers too, there's no shame in winning them. As there's no shame in being a TV movie, especially in a day and age when TV is at its best. The game has changed. The qualification should be movies - Oscars and episodic TV shows/mini-series - Emmy’s. And yes, there is no shame in winning an Emmy but let’s not pretend it’s as prestigious as an Oscar. Also, I’ve yet to hear a single convincing argument on why it should matter if a movie has been in a theater or not. Especially since the majority of people will not see most movies in a theater. And I don’t find “because that’s the way it’s always been done” to be an acceptable answer.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jul 4, 2019 2:52:00 GMT
If TV/streaming stations buy those movies and don't give them a theatrical release, they should absolutely be competing for Emmys. No matter how A-list the talent behind them was. That's part of the game and I don't see any problem with it. Like in any game, there has to be some qualification. And again, Emmys are for A-listers too, there's no shame in winning them. As there's no shame in being a TV movie, especially in a day and age when TV is at its best. The game has changed. The qualification should be movies - Oscars and episodic TV shows/mini-series - Emmy’s. And yes, there is no shame in winning an Emmy but let’s not pretend it’s as prestigious as an Oscar. Also, I’ve yet to hear a single convincing argument on why it should matter if a movie has been in a theater or not. Especially since the majority of people will not see most movies in a theater. And I don’t find “because that’s the way it’s always been done” to be an acceptable answer. When streaming became a thing, the Emmys had to change the qualifications so what they did is have it where you had to broadcast the show in % of the markets. Now that same thing has to happen with the Oscars. Movies were able to show for a week in LA before the end of the year in order to qualify for the Oscars. Usually, that same movie would open wide either the second week of January. Then it would go to video months later. Now that Neflix wants Oscars, they are releasing the movie for a week in order to qualify but a week or two later, the movie will premiere on its service and NEVER go wide. IMHO, I don't think that is appropriate. If Netflix actually attempted to release the movie at least on a limited basis, I would not have a problem with them but the movie will spend a majority of its release streamed and to me it should not be eligible for an Oscar.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jul 4, 2019 2:56:14 GMT
Foreign movies usually don't do well here. Cold War made approx. 4.5 mil dollars. Now even if Roma made a little bit more money with the average cost of ticket price, I am willing to bet that less than 500k accounts in the U.S watched Roma and those numbers equate to bombing at the box office. Can you image Netflix willing to release those numbers? Hell no. So they decided to ignore the figures. Per Netflix in order to be considered watched, an account has to watch 70% of the movie. There were a lot of reports of people starting the movie and not even finishing it. That is why I kept insisting that Roma would not win best picture. If Netflix released box office receipts and has a movie that does well on their service, then and only then do I believe they will win best picture. I'd say more people went back and watched Roma post-Oscars than had prior of course and that's a very big deal because I may watch Roma for the 3rd time next week or next month, etc. I may watch it 10 times in August. Those figures the Academy wants are an outdated way of measuring the popularity of a film based on dead models - and Netflix was actually right not to report - right in ways that go beyond winning and losing a BP Oscar too. Plenty of box office losers win BP after all but Roma is the only Oscar loser where voters judged the work of Art and punished that Art itself because of its accounting practices. Guess Green Book should have an asterisk after their name? Netflix should still be ignoring those figures ...........but cynically they aren't...........when you're playing a game like this even the best intentions get corrupted on both sides. But again the DGA didn't say anything about this in their statement - they just said "pretend to release it in theaters and we'll play ball like we did last year, ok?" Nah. Had they been proud of the numbers even post Oscar wins they would have told us. It is obvious people didn't watch the movie and they are too embarrass to announce the numbers. Just yesterday, they posted yet again bragging about how many people watched Adam Sandler's new movie on opening weekend. And I'm pretty sure in a week or two they will brag about how many people watched Stranger Things this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 4, 2019 3:21:41 GMT
I don't know why would they be embarrassed of anything related to Roma - by any standard it was a triumph for them even if the numbers were bad (were they worse than Cold War? Just sayin' how bad for a foreign film with no stars). If one person watched it's still Roma after all.
...........and again this thread was just about the DGA saying nothing changed anyway though we went down a different path but that was the important part after all - nothing else actually happened here.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Jul 4, 2019 4:16:51 GMT
A lot of very good points! I still kinda understand why the Academy is clinging on to that tradition of theirs while they have adapted to other changes in the past. And I especially get their stance because theatrical film-viewing isn't really quite dead yet. Sure it's got a lot of competition and sure a lot of people are consuming content in other ways but there's still a very healthy industry in theatrical distribution. And we gotta agree that a theatrical event movie cannot compare to a successful streaming film. The way people showed up to see Bohemian Rhapsody or Green Book, for instance, is probably enough proof to the Academy that they should stick with theatrical at this point in time. And your paragraph about our own attention to different awards ceremonies is where the issue really lies - some awards are put on a higher pedestal than the others even if it shouldn't really be this way. Winning an Emmy shouldn't be lesser than winning an Oscar but I perfectly understand that it is perceived to be so. And again, you mention Scorsese but it's clear that Netflix will do a qualifying run for The Irishman and there will be some kind of theatrical release on Scorsese's request (as I understand the situation). So they play along to the rules, no issue against them. I get that the Academy and the DGA may seem like dinosaurs because of their adherence to long-established traditions but I dunno, I can certainly respect that and I see a point in that. Let it be their trademark, their thing. Even if it may make'em seem too old-fashioned. In general, I don't see Emmys as less prestigious than the Oscars; they're simply a different award for a different medium. But if we're comparing the Oscars to the Emmys' TV Film categories, then I think it's pretty undeniable that there's a significant gap in terms of how many people actually pay attention to the winners and nominees of each ceremony. So far that hasn't been much of an issue because all of Netflix and Amazon's A-list projects have gotten proper theatrical releases, but this Oscars vs. Emmys debate absolutely *will* become more contentious in the future, meaning those lines will have to be drawn more clearly. First, because we're already seeing some preemptive pushback from certain awards groups against the rise of streaming companies, like Cannes banning Netflix from competition and now the DGAs revising their own rules to make them stricter even though they're yet to actually nominate any day-and-date releases. This recent piece of news is nothing but a statement on the DGA's part, and it makes it clear that this conversation won't be going away anytime soon. Second, because Amazon and Netflix's output grows larger and larger every year. At some point, Netflix will be putting out more awards contenders than they can reasonably do Roma-sized theatrical rollouts for, and Amazon is already signaling that they'll start going down that route too, as evidenced by them announcing that The Report (which they paid a LOT of money for out of Sundance and which was touted as one of the year's first real Oscar threats) won't be getting a 3-month theatrical window like their previous awards horses such as Manchester by the Sea, and will instead be released to Prime only a couple weeks after its premiere, like Netflix does to its projects. So assuming that the response to this controversy is to have those day-and-date films compete for Emmys instead of Oscars like some are suggesting, my guess is that at some point that's going to dilute the attention that people pay to these awards (which isn't much to begin with, and is already on a nose dive). General audiences and even awards enthusiasts like us are unlikely to start treating the Emmys' film categories like we do the Oscars, and eventually the former is going to attract enough big-name projects that the reactions to the Oscars' nominees will be "well, but so and so aren't eligible, so there's an asterisk next to this whole thing". Imagine the conversation around the Oscars if a Roma-level darling is deemed ineligible and is blocked from competing. Some might say that that's a bad example because the majority of filmgoers wouldn't care about or even be aware of the absence of a slow, arthouse, black & white foreign movie which, as it is now, the majority only heard about because it was nominated for every award under the sun and which most casual viewers probably bailed on after 10 minutes. But look: one of these days Netflix will have an Oscar hopeful that's also a bonafide hit. So far their biggest successes (Bird Box, those Noah Centineo comedies) haven't been the award type and, conversely, their Oscar champions (Roma, Buster Scruggs, Mudbound) have been niche titles with relatively low viewership, but they'll have a La La Land or The Revenant or Fury Road at some point: a film that pulls general audiences in in massive numbers while also catering to the sensibilities of awards bodies. (It could even happen this year with The Irishman, given how popular Scorsese's gangster-themed movies usually are.) If that turns out to be the case and this elusive future hit sits out the awards, people (both in general and in cinephile circles like this board) will turn off from the Oscars even faster than they already do now. The prevailing sentiment won't be "I'll wait for the Emmys, then"; it'll be "what's the point if one of the best and biggest films of the year can't compete due to a technicality?" I just don't see how any awards group benefits by excluding day-and-date releases from consideration when that's how most people actually watch things these days. Don't get me wrong, you bring up valid points as well and I absolutely respect your views; it's just that I don't see what's in it for these awards groups like the DGA. I can understand that this resistence comes from a deep appreciation for the theatrical experience and a willingness to keep it alive (which I obviously share, very intensely so), but I don't think this actually forces streaming companies to stick to the old model; it just alienates audiences from caring about awards.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jul 4, 2019 12:06:43 GMT
A lot of very good points! I still kinda understand why the Academy is clinging on to that tradition of theirs while they have adapted to other changes in the past. And I especially get their stance because theatrical film-viewing isn't really quite dead yet. Sure it's got a lot of competition and sure a lot of people are consuming content in other ways but there's still a very healthy industry in theatrical distribution. And we gotta agree that a theatrical event movie cannot compare to a successful streaming film. The way people showed up to see Bohemian Rhapsody or Green Book, for instance, is probably enough proof to the Academy that they should stick with theatrical at this point in time. And your paragraph about our own attention to different awards ceremonies is where the issue really lies - some awards are put on a higher pedestal than the others even if it shouldn't really be this way. Winning an Emmy shouldn't be lesser than winning an Oscar but I perfectly understand that it is perceived to be so. And again, you mention Scorsese but it's clear that Netflix will do a qualifying run for The Irishman and there will be some kind of theatrical release on Scorsese's request (as I understand the situation). So they play along to the rules, no issue against them. I get that the Academy and the DGA may seem like dinosaurs because of their adherence to long-established traditions but I dunno, I can certainly respect that and I see a point in that. Let it be their trademark, their thing. Even if it may make'em seem too old-fashioned. In general, I don't see Emmys as less prestigious than the Oscars; they're simply a different award for a different medium. But if we're comparing the Oscars to the Emmys' TV Film categories, then I think it's pretty undeniable that there's a significant gap in terms of how many people actually pay attention to the winners and nominees of each ceremony. So far that hasn't been much of an issue because all of Netflix and Amazon's A-list projects have gotten proper theatrical releases, but this Oscars vs. Emmys debate absolutely *will* become more contentious in the future, meaning those lines will have to be drawn more clearly. First, because we're already seeing some preemptive pushback from certain awards groups against the rise of streaming companies, like Cannes banning Netflix from competition and now the DGAs revising their own rules to make them stricter even though they're yet to actually nominate any day-and-date releases. This recent piece of news is nothing but a statement on the DGA's part, and it makes it clear that this conversation won't be going away anytime soon. Second, because Amazon and Netflix's output grows larger and larger every year. At some point, Netflix will be putting out more awards contenders than they can reasonably do Roma-sized theatrical rollouts for, and Amazon is already signaling that they'll start going down that route too, as evidenced by them announcing that The Report (which they paid a LOT of money for out of Sundance and which was touted as one of the year's first real Oscar threats) won't be getting a 3-month theatrical window like their previous awards horses such as Manchester by the Sea, and will instead be released to Prime only a couple weeks after its premiere, like Netflix does to its projects. So assuming that the response to this controversy is to have those day-and-date films compete for Emmys instead of Oscars like some are suggesting, my guess is that at some point that's going to dilute the attention that people pay to these awards (which isn't much to begin with, and is already on a nose dive). General audiences and even awards enthusiasts like us are unlikely to start treating the Emmys' film categories like we do the Oscars, and eventually the former is going to attract enough big-name projects that the reactions to the Oscars' nominees will be "well, but so and so aren't eligible, so there's an asterisk next to this whole thing". Imagine the conversation around the Oscars if a Roma-level darling is deemed ineligible and is blocked from competing. Some might say that that's a bad example because the majority of filmgoers wouldn't care about or even be aware of the absence of a slow, arthouse, black & white foreign movie which, as it is now, the majority only heard about because it was nominated for every award under the sun and which most casual viewers probably bailed on after 10 minutes. But look: one of these days Netflix will have an Oscar hopeful that's also a bonafide hit. So far their biggest successes (Bird Box, those Noah Centineo comedies) haven't been the award type and, conversely, their Oscar champions (Roma, Buster Scruggs, Mudbound) have been niche titles with relatively low viewership, but they'll have a La La Land or The Revenant or Fury Road at some point: a film that pulls general audiences in in massive numbers while also catering to the sensibilities of awards bodies. (It could even happen this year with The Irishman, given how popular Scorsese's gangster-themed movies usually are.) If that turns out to be the case and this elusive future hit sits out the awards, people (both in general and in cinephile circles like this board) will turn off from the Oscars even faster than they already do now. The prevailing sentiment won't be "I'll wait for the Emmys, then"; it'll be "what's the point if one of the best and biggest films of the year can't compete due to a technicality?" I just don't see how any awards group benefits by excluding day-and-date releases from consideration when that's how most people actually watch things these days. Don't get me wrong, you bring up valid points as well and I absolutely respect your views; it's just that I don't see what's in it for these awards groups like the DGA. I can understand that this resistence comes from a deep appreciation for the theatrical experience and a willingness to keep it alive (which I obviously share, very intensely so), but I don't think this actually forces streaming companies to stick to the old model; it just alienates audiences from caring about awards. I don't even have anything to counter your wonderfully expressed points - I read your reply nodding the whole time. Especially the last part about people caring less and less about these film awards if they are unwilling to go along with the changes in the industry. As much as I play devil's advocate here regarding the Academy's and the DGA's position, I myself actually do put streaming feature films in my personal lineups without even thinking twice. And I think in the future these award bodies will just quietly succumb to that too. Especially if the streaming platform market keeps growing as it apparently will.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 4, 2019 15:59:51 GMT
I dunno, I do believe films should be released in cinemas. That's the traditional way. To me, it's either in cinemas or it's a TV-movie. And the awards shouldn't be given to TV-movies. Maybe I'm too traditional but that's the way I feel. Of course I don't mind the length of the theater window before the TV/platform release. Two weeks or a month or even three months, I don't care. In my country even the films that draw thousands of people in cinemas don't get a theatrical run more than 6-8 weeks (usually only 2-3 weeks). So I don't really mind about that. But a day-and-date release? That's not the traditional way movies should be seen. On the other hand, I disagree with all the paranoia around that matter. I don't know what they're trying to achieve by banning these films from award consideration. Preserve the classic format of movie watching and the viability of the theaters? Naaahh... I don't think so. Maybe they're afraid that in a few years all the platforms will have become movie giants and take the audiences out of the theaters. It's not about traditional cinema, it's really a matter of money. Clinging to “the traditional way” of doing anything is asinine. Like it or hate it, Netflix and other streaming services and changed the game. And likewise, the definition of TV movie has also changed. More and more the best talent is going to be creating movies on these platforms. Is it really worth keeping them out of the conversation because lesser movies were in a theater? Also, all of these awards are being seen on screeners for voting, so what’s the difference? Not too mention the majority of all people watch more movies at their house than in a theater. Actually it's not the traditional way. It's the ONLY way. Movies are meant to be shown in theaters. If they are shown in TV, then they are TV-movies. It's the definition of the term: That's why they are called TV movies. I repeat my opinion that if these streaming services/platforms movies have a theatrical run, they should be eligible for the Oscars, even if they are being released day-and-date with the platform/tv/internet. I have problem with that. Many great actors and film makers tend to work on television, that's true. That doesn't mean they are not doing tv movies because um... they are. These people and films are not eligible for the Oscars in exactly the same way that the movies shown in theaters are not eligible for the Emmys. The rules are clear on that one. No theatrical release (at all), no Oscar eligibility. The fact that the voting is taking place through screeners or dvd or whatever, plus the fact that most people watch movies in their homes is totally irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jul 4, 2019 16:15:17 GMT
Clinging to “the traditional way” of doing anything is asinine. Like it or hate it, Netflix and other streaming services and changed the game. And likewise, the definition of TV movie has also changed. More and more the best talent is going to be creating movies on these platforms. Is it really worth keeping them out of the conversation because lesser movies were in a theater? Also, all of these awards are being seen on screeners for voting, so what’s the difference? Not too mention the majority of all people watch more movies at their house than in a theater. Actually it's not the traditional way. It's the ONLY way. Movies are meant to be shown in theaters. If they are shown in TV, then they are TV-movies. It's the definition of the term: That's why they are called TV movies. I repeat my opinion that if these streaming services/platforms movies have a theatrical run, they should be eligible for the Oscars, even if they are being released day-and-date with the platform/tv/internet. I have problem with that. Many great actors and film makers tend to work on television, that's true. That doesn't mean they are not doing tv movies because um... they are. These people and films are not eligible for the Oscars in exactly the same way that the movies shown in theaters are not eligible for the Emmys. The rules are clear on that one. No theatrical release (at all), no Oscar eligibility. The fact that the voting is taking place through screeners or dvd or whatever, plus the fact that most people watch movies in their homes is totally irrelevant.Why? Because the movie was in a theater for a month or 2 at some period in time?
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 4, 2019 16:34:00 GMT
Actually it's not the traditional way. It's the ONLY way. Movies are meant to be shown in theaters. If they are shown in TV, then they are TV-movies. It's the definition of the term: That's why they are called TV movies. I repeat my opinion that if these streaming services/platforms movies have a theatrical run, they should be eligible for the Oscars, even if they are being released day-and-date with the platform/tv/internet. I have problem with that. Many great actors and film makers tend to work on television, that's true. That doesn't mean they are not doing tv movies because um... they are. These people and films are not eligible for the Oscars in exactly the same way that the movies shown in theaters are not eligible for the Emmys. The rules are clear on that one. No theatrical release (at all), no Oscar eligibility. The fact that the voting is taking place through screeners or dvd or whatever, plus the fact that most people watch movies in their homes is totally irrelevant.Why? Because the movie was in a theater for a month or 2 at some period in time? Because it was in theaters for some time (I really don't mind how much) and gave the opportunity to the people to watch it there and so it followed the rules of the award eligibility. Don't get me wrong, I know the real point here for the theater owners is money: If many major stars and auters present their films only on tv and not cinemas, they are losing money. I know they don't really care about movie goers and cinematic integrity. They're just trying to push these platform giants to releasing their stuff in theaters way before the internet or television. "Give us three months in advance or there is no awards for you". But how is relevant if most of the people watch movies at home? If they want to watch a movie in cinema (and can afford it) they should be given the chance to do so. And on the other hand, you can't win a Tony by making a tv series, right? Or a Grammy for a movie. That's just the rules.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jul 9, 2019 0:47:42 GMT
I'd say more people went back and watched Roma post-Oscars than had prior of course and that's a very big deal because I may watch Roma for the 3rd time next week or next month, etc. I may watch it 10 times in August. Those figures the Academy wants are an outdated way of measuring the popularity of a film based on dead models - and Netflix was actually right not to report - right in ways that go beyond winning and losing a BP Oscar too. Plenty of box office losers win BP after all but Roma is the only Oscar loser where voters judged the work of Art and punished that Art itself because of its accounting practices. Guess Green Book should have an asterisk after their name? Netflix should still be ignoring those figures ...........but cynically they aren't...........when you're playing a game like this even the best intentions get corrupted on both sides. But again the DGA didn't say anything about this in their statement - they just said "pretend to release it in theaters and we'll play ball like we did last year, ok?" Nah. Had they been proud of the numbers even post Oscar wins they would have told us. It is obvious people didn't watch the movie and they are too embarrass to announce the numbers. Just yesterday, they posted yet again bragging about how many people watched Adam Sandler's new movie on opening weekend. And I'm pretty sure in a week or two they will brag about how many people watched Stranger Things this weekend. LMAO!!!! Right on schedule with the Stranger Things bragging..... I know I'm right about the Roma numbers. It is beyond obvious.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 9, 2019 1:06:58 GMT
Well we'll never really know if you're right or not on those Roma numbers - and it's not quite as obvious to me that you're right at all on those numbers either tbh...........on the other hand ..........6 episodes in on Stranger Things and so far so good.
|
|