|
Post by MsMovieStar on Mar 5, 2019 8:12:03 GMT
Oh honey, they need to get with the times and open the Oscars up to Netflix, Amazon, Pornhub... It's not the Seventies anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Mar 5, 2019 10:02:35 GMT
That's great but what does that have to do with awards? What do theatrical releases have to do with awards? I mean, I'm trying to make a point but the answer to that is simple: theaters have been the primary mode of delivering cinema to the mass audience throughout the 20th century which is why our perception of cinema has been linked intrinsically to the theatrical platform and it also explains the Academy's eligibility rules. But technology changes, and when blind traditionalists like Spielberg fight against that they should have a better reason than "this is what it should be because this is what it's always been." I used to be on the fence with this issue (until fairly recently if I recall) but are there any serious arguments for this position anymore besides an appeal to the way things have always been? And when that results in dismissing a film like Roma (which had a good shot at making history even apart from its release platform and lost votes because Spielberg campaigned against it on a technicality) or Buster Scruggs or the host of documentaries Netflix has produced, everything starts feeling really arbitrary. And then you also have to take into account that because most of us cinephiles are not in our 70s, unlike Spielberg, there are many films that we didn't get to see in theaters. Most of my favorite films--scratch that, basically all of them--are not films I watched on the big screen. That's the reality of living in an increasingly digital world where all of these things are practically at our fingertips, and Spielberg is very much out of touch with it.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 5, 2019 11:53:26 GMT
Said it before, earlier in this thread, the movie industry or "Oscar industry" at least has somehow turned Neflix into Tucker. When they say they love movies, it's that one they really mean but with a different ending. In their version they went after the consumers first, game over.
Look, I miss the video store experience. I miss the record store experience. I miss the White Castle burger experience (well sorta), but that's my experience, I don't own or control YOUR experience or own the term even. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he didn't exist.......I have no doubt that Netflix literally is the devil who would love to bankrupt theater chains. Which is why Spielberg should take a billion dollars and open his own theater chain. Instead, he insists on fighting a war of shifting goal posts that he can't possibly win and rather than look like the heroic little guy - every time he will force them to do anything - anything at all whether they say "Fnck you Mr. Spielberg" or "Yes sir whatever you want Mr. Spielberg"- he makes his side look wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 7, 2019 1:24:01 GMT
To add my cents into this discussion, let me begin by quoting what Wiki quote about ROMA:
Roma made between 3-4 million dollars at the box-office. Being a black-and-white foreign language film without any major stars in it, that's pretty good. Before its release, it was selling out in NYC, LA, and San Fran areas.
Steven Spielberg is far from being "old man yelling at cloud". He makes a good point: Oscar movies should try to make a legitimate theatrical run BEFORE going onto home video or streaming services. Just look at Manchester By The Sea. That film was released into theaters in mid-to-late November and then available on Amazon in early February, roughly a 2.5 month window.
Perhaps a compromise or rule change is require at least a four-six week window between its opening weekend and its release on a streaming service. For example: Netflix can release The Irishman into theaters in mid-October and then on December 1st -- when the Critics Choice, National Board of Review, AFI, NY Film critics, Golden Globes, and LA film critics come out with yearly awards/nominations -- the film can be available to watch on Netflix.
I don't think it's a tall glass to ask streaming services to try to make a legitimate theatrical run.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 7, 2019 1:26:27 GMT
Oh honey, they need to get with the times and open the Oscars up to Netflix, Amazon, Pornhub... It's not the Seventies anymore.
Not sure if I understand this viewpoint. Nobody is arguing that production companies with streaming connections should be ineligible for Oscars. The point here is that Oscar-eligible films should make an attempt to make an actual, legitimate theatrical run before being released onto Netflix/Amazon.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 7, 2019 2:09:45 GMT
He just released a statement saying he's willing to go to 18 days theatrical run - if a movie made enough money because you wouldn't want anything from say the small timers at Magnolia Films to qualify and if Netflix throws in a Dairy Queen hot fudge sundae and a handjob in the balcony of his local theater so he can relive his theater experience while watching Robbie the Robot in Forbidden Planet.
|
|
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 Mar 7, 2019 2:35:42 GMT
Not sure if I understand this viewpoint. Nobody is arguing that production companies with streaming connections should be ineligible for Oscars. The point here is that Oscar-eligible films should make an attempt to make an actual, legitimate theatrical run before being released onto Netflix/Amazon. That's the problem, though: what is an actual, legitimate theatrical run? How do we even define that threshold? By number of screens? Because that would completely fuck over tiny distributors which simply lack the means to compete in the current landscape and can barely get their projects to be shown in a double-digit roster of theaters. I mean, sure, it's not like the Academy is paying those companies any attention anyway (when was the last time Cinema Guild managed to get an above-the-line nomination, even though they release some of the most interesting stuff in any given year?), but that would all but make it official. And this will only get worse from here on out, given how increasingly hard it's getting for adult-oriented, non-blockbuster projects to have profitable theatrical runs, with or without the aid of awards hype. So, do we then define a proper theatrical run by its duration? Say, a film must screen for X consecutive days to qualify? Because dumping films in 4 screens on Christmas Day before going wide in the first weeks of January is something that's always been done (see: Spielberg's very own The Post, like Mike pointed out), and no one's ever had a problem with that. What's the difference between releasing something exclusively in NY/LA on December 28 and what Netflix had always done up until Roma? Does selling 500 tickets qualify as more of a respectable release than selling the same 500 tickets AND making the film available to millions of people nationwide, only on the basis of which screen the images are projected on? If the Academy wants to review the rules, then sure, go ahead. Whatever system they come up with will be completely arbitrary and flawed either way, because there's no way for an awards ceremony honoring something as subjective as art not to be arbitrary and flawed. But if they're gonna do that, they'd better apply the new rules to *every* studio, not just the streaming companies. They're all (even Netflix) complying with the eligibility rules that have been in place for years, and which no one's ever had any issue with even if it meant that some movies would only reach a few thousand viewers in a handful of big cities. Also, the argument that Netflix films should only be eligible for Emmys doesn't hold water. HBO doesn't screen their films in theaters, they only broadcast them on cable. If they did, even if it's just 1 week in 1 theater, then that would qualify as a proper theatrical release (and by that I mean "proper" under the current Academy guidelines) and those films would thus deserve to be eligible. I understand why some distinguish between films and long-format projects when making their own lists and whatnot ("Is Twin Peaks: The Return my #1 film of 2017, or is it just my #1 miniseries of 2017??"), but the split between "actual movie"/"TV movie" is nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Mar 7, 2019 2:43:05 GMT
I think this whole mess is really quite silly. It's essentially a more corrupt end-of-the-year high school superlatives. The fact that probably the biggest name in Hollywood history is spearheading this just makes me roll my eyes even further.
|
|
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 Mar 7, 2019 2:56:41 GMT
The fact that probably the biggest name in Hollywood history is spearheading this just makes me roll my eyes even further. "We must protect the sanctity of the theatrical experience!", cried the only person not named Christopher Nolan or Quentin Tarantino who can get literally everything they make shoved into 3,000 theaters and every studio they call to throw $150 million at a motion picture which cannot be defined as "the ____th installment in the _____ Cinematic Universe".
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Mar 7, 2019 3:37:26 GMT
honestly not sure how people can read stuff like this and believe in some sort of sanctity of the oscars; i feel like the rest of the world has woken up by now, but when hairs are being split over what constitutes a theatrical run and it ultimately not actually mattering because those low budget distributors will never have "the motion picture of the year" at what point do you realize it's stupid?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 7, 2019 11:11:51 GMT
Not sure if I understand this viewpoint. Nobody is arguing that production companies with streaming connections should be ineligible for Oscars. The point here is that Oscar-eligible films should make an attempt to make an actual, legitimate theatrical run before being released onto Netflix/Amazon. That's the problem, though: what is an actual, legitimate theatrical run? How do we even define that threshold? By number of screens? Because that would completely fuck over tiny distributors which simply lack the means to compete in the current landscape and can barely get their projects to be shown in a double-digit roster of theaters. So, do we then define a proper theatrical run by its duration? Say, a film must screen for X consecutive days to qualify? Because dumping films in 4 screens on Christmas Day before going wide in the first weeks of January is something that's always been done (see: Spielberg's very own The Post, like Mike pointed out), and no one's ever had a problem with that. What's the difference between releasing something exclusively in NY/LA on December 28 and what Netflix had always done up until Roma? If the Academy wants to review the rules, then sure, go ahead. Whatever system they come up with will be completely arbitrary and flawed either way, because there's no way for an awards ceremony honoring something as subjective as art not to be arbitrary and flawed. But if they're gonna do that, they'd better apply the new rules to *every* studio, not just the streaming companies. They're all (even Netflix) complying with the eligibility rules that have been in place for years, and which no one's ever had any issue with even if it meant that some movies would only reach a few thousand viewers in a handful of big cities. First off, studios campaign for the Oscars. Smaller films, low profile films -- the ones released in a couple of art house theaters -- released by small disturbers pretty much always gets ignored. The reason: studio doesn't have enough resources to do a full-fledged awards season campaign. And besides those are the films which lack the buzz, the attention, the acclaim, meriting major awards. We have the independent Spirit awards and Sundance to honor those films. It doesn't matter what rules you implement. These are small, low-release movies likely to get awards attention at festivals and indie awards. Unless the film gets big financial backing, Oscar, Globe, and Guild attention are pretty much not in the cards. Asking a studio to wait a month or six weeks to release their product onto streaming services and attempt to maintain in theaters is not a tall glass to ask. I am sorry, but it's not. What we want to avoid is Netflix releasing their movies into a couple of theaters, and then a week later, yank it and put it on Netflix. This would indicate that the film was never intended to be a theatrical film. It was intended on being a Netflix movie, which is TV. Defining the boundaries of what is a theatrical movie and what is a tv movie is a worthy debate for members of the Academy to have. Spielberg wants the lines to be less blurry and every studio to play by the same rules. For that, I agree with him. As for Spielberg and The Post, it's not really hypocritical of him. The Post was not a Netflix film. It had a long theatrical run before hitting the digital/DVD market. It got released in late December to qualify for the Oscars/Globes/Guilds, but come January, it was strategically, went wide.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 7, 2019 16:09:48 GMT
That's the problem, though: what is an actual, legitimate theatrical run? How do we even define that threshold? By number of screens? Because that would completely fuck over tiny distributors which simply lack the means to compete in the current landscape and can barely get their projects to be shown in a double-digit roster of theaters. So, do we then define a proper theatrical run by its duration? Say, a film must screen for X consecutive days to qualify? Because dumping films in 4 screens on Christmas Day before going wide in the first weeks of January is something that's always been done (see: Spielberg's very own The Post, like Mike pointed out), and no one's ever had a problem with that. What's the difference between releasing something exclusively in NY/LA on December 28 and what Netflix had always done up until Roma? If the Academy wants to review the rules, then sure, go ahead. Whatever system they come up with will be completely arbitrary and flawed either way, because there's no way for an awards ceremony honoring something as subjective as art not to be arbitrary and flawed. But if they're gonna do that, they'd better apply the new rules to *every* studio, not just the streaming companies. They're all (even Netflix) complying with the eligibility rules that have been in place for years, and which no one's ever had any issue with even if it meant that some movies would only reach a few thousand viewers in a handful of big cities. First off, studios campaign for the Oscars. Smaller films, low profile films -- the ones released in a couple of art house theaters -- released by small disturbers pretty much always gets ignored. The reason: studio doesn't have enough resources to do a full-fledged awards season campaign. And besides those are the films which lack the buzz, the attention, the acclaim, meriting major awards. We have the independent Spirit awards and Sundance to honor those films. It doesn't matter what rules you implement. These are small, low-release movies likely to get awards attention at festivals and indie awards. Unless the film gets big financial backing, Oscar, Globe, and Guild attention are pretty much not in the cards. Asking a studio to wait a month or six weeks to release their product onto streaming services and attempt to maintain in theaters is not a tall glass to ask. I am sorry, but it's not. What we want to avoid is Netflix releasing their movies into a couple of theaters, and then a week later, yank it and put it on Netflix. This would indicate that the film was never intended to be a theatrical film. It was intended on being a Netflix movie, which is TV. Defining the boundaries of what is a theatrical movie and what is a tv movie is a worthy debate for members of the Academy to have. Spielberg wants to lines to be less blurry and every studio to play by the same rules. For that, I agree with him. As for Spielberg and The Post, it's not really hypocritical of him. The Post was not a Netflix film. It had a long theatrical run before hitting the digital/DVD market. It got released in late December to qualify for the Oscars/Globes/Guilds, but come January, it was strategically, went wide. Triple Frontier is a prime example. What is the point in putting it in theatres for one week and then putting it on Netflix seven days later? Just put it on Netflix and be done with it. An action heist film with Ben Affleck is playing in one theatre near me... Sorry that makes no sense. Oh and by the way, Netflix will prove how many people didn't watch Roma when the y hype up Triple Frontier 's viewer numbers.
|
|
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 Mar 8, 2019 1:54:32 GMT
First off, studios campaign for the Oscars. Smaller films, low profile films -- the ones released in a couple of art house theaters -- released by small disturbers pretty much always gets ignored. The reason: studio doesn't have enough resources to do a full-fledged awards season campaign. I'm aware. I said all of that myself. I see the point you're making, but let me just complain here for a sec: when fucking Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody are sweeping the so-called major awards like the Oscars/Golden Globes, and the Indie Spirits (which you're painting as little more than a second class consolation party) are being dominated by the likes of If Beale Street Could Talk and Can You Ever Forgive Me?, it becomes pretty clear that lacking acclaim and merit isn't what differentiates whether a film breaks out with the amps or not. Just wanted to throw that out there. I agree, and I've been saying as much for a long time now. If Netflix played the game like Amazon does, there'd be no backlash in Hollywood. Chances are they'd have a Best Picture win under their belt right now if they'd agreed to play ball from day one. It's never been about whether or not that's a tall order; it's about whether or not what Spielberg is proposing is a sustainable, justifiable business model in a world where most people flock to streaming as their preferred method of media consumption because that's what they can afford, and where less and less types of films can compete in a theatrical market that's increasingly monopolized by billion-dollar franchises. But why? That's exactly what I don't understand. Why is this a problem that needs to be avoided? Why are those movies any lesser? Arthouse titles playing in a ridiculously low number of theaters and then getting yanked due to low box-office or a small distributor has always been a thing. Where do we draw the line between "problem that needs to be solved through multiple meetings" and "yer ordinary foreign arthouse shit whose entire audience consists of the 12 people that bought a ticket to see it on a big screen + the 20 critics that gave it a 95 on Metacritic"? Except for notable exceptions like Steven Soderbergh (who's so knee-deep into streaming at this point that he's now shooting his projects in the same mobile devices that people use to watch them), the large majority of big-name filmmakers who agree to work with Netflix demand some sort of theatrical release. Cuarón and Scorsese basically strongarmed them into making more drastic changes to their model than they ever had before, so how would Roma and The Irishman *not* be intended as theatrical films? And again I ask: what's the difference between a TV movie and a "real" movie? Because if we're gonna start dismissing anything that can't find space in multiplexes as a subcategory, I guarantee you that in 10 years' time, 95% of "real" movies are gonna be Disney's $300 million blockbusters, and the other 5% will be palatable crowdpleasers like Bohemian Rhapsody (which we all luv so much). The kinds of films that this board (and other film/awards forums like it) talk about day in day out make less and less money with each passing year. Spielberg will never have to worry about having a platform; Cuarón and Scorsese already do, which is why they had to sign up to the only studio interested in funding their vision and bringing their B-rate TV movies to life. Once more: if the films get theatrical releases, then they are, by definition, not TV movies. Where they play after that initial theatrical run has never mattered until Netflix shortened that window. Every film becomes a TV film after its theatrical run is over. That's true of little indies that play in 10 screens and then head to VOD because they're too niche to appeal to a wider market, and it's also true of big tentpoles like Aquaman, which hit $1 billion worldwide, get pulled from theaters after a while and then continue to be watched by people for years and years on their phones' HBO Go app. >99% of Roma screenings to occur over the next few years will not take place in movie theaters; people will watch it on their TVs, their phones, their tablets and their laptops, because that's where it will be available to them. Likewise, >99% of Aquaman screenings will not take place in movie theaters. Both those projects have at one point played in commercial cinemas that were open to ticket-buying audiences, and therefore belong in the same category, regardless of how long it took them to arrive elsewhere after they played theatrically. They are playing by the same rules. Roma and Buster Scruggs got qualifying theatrical runs just like everything else did, not just this year but in every ceremony since the rules were put in place. The keyword here being "strategically". The Post had a long theatrical run... in 2018. As far as the eligibility period for the Oscar ceremony honoring 2017 films goes, The Post was a very limited engagement, available only to a restricted number of movie goers in a few select cities. It technically qualified as a "proper theatrical release" because it fulfilled the Academy's current guidelines of playing in a specific number of commercial theaters before December 31st 2017, but the fact remains that the studio made a conscious decision to withhold that film from theater goers (however temporarily) in order to invest in a different rollout strategy which they belived would maximize their gains. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too; give it just enough of a theatrical release that it could pick up some Oscar noms, but still maintain enough flexibility to make their own decisions in regards to how they'd handle/market the product that they invested their money into. Sounds familiar? That's what every single awards-campaigning studio does, including 20th Century Fox and including Netflix. For the former, that involved not giving The Post a full-fledged theatrical release in 2017 (even though that was the eligibility year that it was competing in) and instead sitting on it for a while so as to maximize their box-office gains and find a more beneficial window to allow it to make the most possible money. For the latter, that involves deciding how wide to take their films and when to add them to their database, so that their products will help raise interest in their brand and make general audiences want to subscribe to their service. It's all the same. It's all about money.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 8, 2019 2:04:58 GMT
Zeb31 well put and greatly said on all points. You echo my perspective but lay it out much more articulately than I would have. I agree on all accounts.
|
|
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 Mar 8, 2019 2:09:22 GMT
Zeb31 well put and greatly said on all points. You echo my perspective but lay it out much more articulately than I would have. I agree on all accounts. Merci.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 8, 2019 3:49:18 GMT
(1) I see the point you're making, but let me just complain here for a sec: when fucking Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody are sweeping the so-called major awards like the Oscars/Golden Globes, and the Indie Spirits (which you're painting as little more than a second class consolation party) are being dominated by the likes of If Beale Street Could Talk and Can You Ever Forgive Me?, it becomes pretty clear that lacking acclaim and merit isn't what differentiates whether a film breaks out with the amps or not. Just wanted to throw that out there. (2) But why? That's exactly what I don't understand. Why is this a problem that needs to be avoided? Why are those movies any lesser? Arthouse titles playing in a ridiculously low number of theaters and then getting yanked due to low box-office or a small distributor has always been a thing. Where do we draw the line between "problem that needs to be solved through multiple meetings" and "yer ordinary foreign arthouse shit whose entire audience consists of the 12 people that bought a ticket to see it on a big screen + the 20 critics that gave it a 95 on Metacritic"? (3) And again I ask: what's the difference between a TV movie and a "real" movie? (4) Once more: if the films get theatrical releases, then they are, by definition, not TV movies. Where they play after that initial theatrical run has never mattered until Netflix shortened that window. (5) The Post had a long theatrical run... in 2018. As far as the eligibility period for the Oscar ceremony honoring 2017 films goes, The Post was a very limited engagement, available only to a restricted number of movie goers in a few select cities. It technically qualified as a "proper theatrical release" because it fulfilled the Academy's current guidelines of playing in a specific number of commercial theaters before Lots of writing here, which is fine, but I am going to narrow down your points. 1. I know you hated Green Book, but that doesn't mean it wasn't critically acclaimed. It won the Toronto Film Festival, National Board of Review, Nevada Film Critics, North Texas Film Critics, and the Phoenix Film Critics Best Picture awards. According to RT.com approved film critics, it had a 78-80% approval rating and a 7.2/10 critical mean. Metacritic scored it as a 69/100. The Broadcast Film Critics rated it with a 94/100 score, the highest among the Best Picture nominees. According to IMDB, the film is the second highest rated film of 2018 with an 8.2/10 rating. The film is the very definition of critical acclaim and acclaim itself. I am not here to debate the merits of Green Book or Bohemian Rhapsody, I am just pointing out that movies which make a dent in our society get attention and the ones which didn't get ignored. Eighth Grade would have never been up for Golden Globes, Critics Choice awards, and the WGA, if it didn't play well with audiences and continue to expand to more theaters. Per Boxofficemojo, we had 872 films released into theaters in 2018. 252 of those films grossed at least 1 million dollars at the boxoffice. That's 29%. Understanding the concept that most films do not crack RT.com's 60% benchmark or Metacritic's 61/100 benchmark or BFCA's 75/100 benchmark or gross at least 100 million is pretty critical here. 2. It's a problem because it puts movie theater chains on the verge of being obsolete. Is that what you want? Do you really want to see movie theaters turning into blockbuster? The reason why films die out at the art house or small theater chains is because the audience rejected it. Netflix is pulling films because it reaches the bare-bones level for Oscar eligibility, not because audiences wanted to see something else. You see the difference? One is B.Sing it, and the other is making a real attempt at making a long theatrical run. 3. I am sorry, but that's a misrepresentation. A TV movie is a real movie. A theatrical movie is a real movie. Being on television does not make the movie junk or 2nd tier. Netflix's statement simply highlighted that they like to buy up movies and give different kinds of filmmakers a chance. It never disputed the fact they don't make an honest attempt at being a theatrical film. 4. When Roma or Buster Scruggs or Dumplin (rolling my eyes) were bought by Neflix, was the intention to make a long theatrical run or be something you watch on Netflix? The answer is the latter. 5. The Post had a long theatrical run in 2018, because major awards ceremonies were in Janaury-February-March. That's when the crowd wanted to see them. They wanted to see if The Post was worthy of its awards praise. But The Post was not released into theaters for a week, yanked, and put on Amazon/Hulu/Netflix. But in the overall picture, we do agree: expand the window, and we will not see members of Academy complain about Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon trying to use loopholes.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 8, 2019 4:19:03 GMT
I don't understand why it would be okay to show a movie for a week and then put it on streaming for all to see? I don't understand why a 4 week window isn't sufficient especially since a movie makes most of its box office by the point.
You know in order to qualify for the Emmys, you have to be in 50% of the market. They had to change the rules due to streaming. Let's not forget here that the Oscars are voluntary. You have to submit your movie for consideration. If a movie like Mandy can open on 250 screens for 8 weeks and report box office then Neflix can do the same thing with any of their Oscar worthy releases. Netflix spend between $50 to $90 mil dollars on the Oscar campaign, so give your movie a proper release.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 8, 2019 12:29:02 GMT
I don't understand why it would be okay to show a movie for a week and then put it on streaming for all to see? I don't understand why a 4 week window isn't sufficient especially since a movie makes most of its box office by the point. You know in order to qualify for the Emmys, you have to be in 50% of the market. They had to change the rules due to streaming. Let's not forget here that the Oscars are voluntary. You have to submit your movie for consideration. If a movie like Mandy can open on 250 screens for 8 weeks and report box office then Neflix can do the same thing with any of their Oscar worthy releases. Netflix spend between $50 to $90 mil dollars on the Oscar campaign, so give your movie a proper release. The voice of reason here. Thank you Quetee! Kicking and screaming because some people want theatrical movies to be theatrical movies is rather silly. Release the movie into theaters for at least a month, and then put it on a different medium. Problem solved. If Manchester By the Sea can do it, so can Netflix.
|
|
|
Post by eyebrowmorroco on Mar 8, 2019 16:10:31 GMT
I generally don't care for Spielberg's direction, but, with the direction he's heading re the matter at hand, we're in accord.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Morales on Mar 8, 2019 17:15:37 GMT
According to IMDB, the film is the second highest rated film of 2018 with an 8.2/10 rating. Not true. Even discounting foreign films, Green Book is third behind Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and Avengers: Infinity War.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 9, 2019 2:23:20 GMT
I don't understand why it would be okay to show a movie for a week and then put it on streaming for all to see? I don't understand why a 4 week window isn't sufficient especially since a movie makes most of its box office by the point. You know in order to qualify for the Emmys, you have to be in 50% of the market. They had to change the rules due to streaming. Let's not forget here that the Oscars are voluntary. You have to submit your movie for consideration. If a movie like Mandy can open on 250 screens for 8 weeks and report box office then Neflix can do the same thing with any of their Oscar worthy releases. Netflix spend between $50 to $90 mil dollars on the Oscar campaign, so give your movie a proper release. What’s the real difference between 1 week and 4 weeks in a theater? Why does it matter at all? There are more than enough movies to see at the theater, it’s really nice to have a quality selection on Netflix on top of that. Everyone can only see so many movies in a theater, and a lot of people only a small handful, so a very large chunk of movies are still only viewed at home via rental or cable regardless. The Oscars will become irrelevant if he’s ti a point that the majority of the general public’s favorite movies end up illegible to be nominated.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 10, 2019 22:07:18 GMT
I don't understand why it would be okay to show a movie for a week and then put it on streaming for all to see? I don't understand why a 4 week window isn't sufficient especially since a movie makes most of its box office by the point. You know in order to qualify for the Emmys, you have to be in 50% of the market. They had to change the rules due to streaming. Let's not forget here that the Oscars are voluntary. You have to submit your movie for consideration. If a movie like Mandy can open on 250 screens for 8 weeks and report box office then Neflix can do the same thing with any of their Oscar worthy releases. Netflix spend between $50 to $90 mil dollars on the Oscar campaign, so give your movie a proper release. What’s the real difference between 1 week and 4 weeks in a theater? Why does it matter at all? There are more than enough movies to see at the theater, it’s really nice to have a quality selection on Netflix on top of that. Everyone can only see so many movies in a theater, and a lot of people only a small handful, so a very large chunk of movies are still only viewed at home via rental or cable regardless. The Oscars will become irrelevant if he’s ti a point that the majority of the general public’s favorite movies end up illegible to be nominated. It's about setting a standard. The Emmy's do the same thing, that is just the rules. Here's the thing, even if you do only have the movie play in one week, then your next step should not being streaming the movie a week later. Other movies who release for a week do not have that advantage. Besides, that still doesn't answer the question: what's so bad with winning an Emmy?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 10, 2019 22:41:55 GMT
It's about setting a standard. The Emmy's do the same thing, that is just the rules. Here's the thing, even if you do only have the movie play in one week, then your next step should not being streaming the movie a week later. Other movies who release for a week do not have that advantage. Besides, that still doesn't answer the question: what's so bad with winning an Emmy? Well there's nothing wrong with winning an Emmy but if they meet the rules for a film then they deserve an Oscar - this year they met the rules, as written, and they will do that again if they want to, they are able to do anything the Academy wants........many film studios can't, oh well the Academy doesn't care. It's a terrible plan imo as rumored and as far as I know Spielberg hasn't even presented this as the official plan yet - that's later this month so just set the rules and we'll see how it goes. The Emmy's are a mess anyway, for example San Junipero won an Emmy - but now it would not, it has to be at least 75 minutes now - that is literally called the "Netflix" rule. If Netflix wants that particular Emmy, then they'll make it longer now. No big deal to them at all, if they don't want it, they won't do it. No one says anything about the Emmy's failing to cover the huge depth of shows across categories big shows too - though they obviously fail big time in this regard - they are clearly bought and paid for too, in fact they are bought and paid for by Netflix actually, who broke a 17 year old streak of HBO being the most nodded network. That is the entire problem regarding movies - they set a standard and are locked into it for a year. If that is "the rules", then ok, they should set them, because when Netflix wins BP whether its The Irishman or something else, this year or later, they'll never in theory have to follow those rules or play that game again - it's not a long term relationship for Netflix and the Academy. They see it as friends with benefits......
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 10, 2019 22:53:05 GMT
Well there's nothing wrong with winning an Emmy but if they meet the rules for a film then they deserve an Oscar - this year they met the rules, as written, and they will do that again if they want to, they are able to do anything the Academy wants........many film studios can't, oh well the Academy doesn't care. It's a terrible plan imo as rumored and as far as I know Spielberg hasn't even presented this as the official plan yet - that's later this month so just set the rules and we'll see how it goes. The Emmy's are a mess anyway, for example San Junipero won an Emmy - but now it would not, it has to be at least 75 minutes now - that is literally called the "Netflix" rule. If Netflix wants that particular Emmy, then they'll make it longer now. No big deal to them at all, if they don't want it, they won't do it. No one says anything about the Emmy's failing to cover the huge depth of shows across categories big shows too - though they obviously fail big time in this regard - they are clearly bought and paid for too, in fact they are bought and paid for by Netflix actually, who broke a 17 year old streak of HBO being the most nodded network. That is the entire problem regarding movies - they set a standard and are locked into it for a year. If that is "the rules", then ok, they should set them, because when Netflix wins BP whether its The Irishman or something else, this year or later, they'll never in theory have to follow those rules or play that game again - it's not a long term relationship for Netflix and the Academy. They see it as friends with benefits...... I agree that if those are the rules then those are the rules and they did met the rules. However, things have changed since 2012. Do you think Triple Frontier should be eligible for Oscars? It was in theatres for one week and then will be on Netflix this week. To me, no, cause the majority of its time will be shown on streaming. It is only a matter of time for either Netflix or Amazon to win best picture, but they won't win one if they have a total disregard to the theatre experience. Nobody has a problem with Amazon. Nobody. Remember, I was adamant that Roma would not win best picture. I knew it wouldn't cause of how it handled its released. In addition to that, there was no transparency in regards to how many people even watched it on Netflix. If they work those kinks out then there is no way they will have any more problems. As for The Irishman, of course people will watch it in the theatre and of course Neflix will crow about how many people watched it on their service. People want to watch this movie. Not too many people even watched Roma so Netflix couldn't even brag about the numbers. They weren't stupid that would have 100% killed the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 10, 2019 23:45:42 GMT
What’s the real difference between 1 week and 4 weeks in a theater? Why does it matter at all? There are more than enough movies to see at the theater, it’s really nice to have a quality selection on Netflix on top of that. Everyone can only see so many movies in a theater, and a lot of people only a small handful, so a very large chunk of movies are still only viewed at home via rental or cable regardless. The Oscars will become irrelevant if he’s ti a point that the majority of the general public’s favorite movies end up illegible to be nominated. It's about setting a standard. The Emmy's do the same thing, that is just the rules. Here's the thing, even if you do only have the movie play in one week, then your next step should not being streaming the movie a week later. Other movies who release for a week do not have that advantage. Besides, that still doesn't answer the question: what's so bad with winning an Emmy? Why not change the standard to Movie vs TV series? Times are changing. Top filmmakers and actors are making top quality films either directly with a deal with Netflix or on their own and then get bought by Netflix out of festival. The only difference is the viewing platform and not the quality or merit of the films. An Emmy is just not the same for a film as an Oscar is and I’ve yet to here one real compelling reason why these films should not be eligible to win won. Why should the standard be based on playing in a theater and also not streaming for a month, or 2, or 3? Everyone I know that’s seen Green Book rented it on demand? Does it really matter that it was in a theater for any reason outside of box office?
|
|