|
Post by Martin Stett on Mar 11, 2019 0:40:05 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? 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? Why does it matter that something played in a certain venue if nobody cares about that venue anymore? I have no nostalgia for the "movie-going experience" (it's not like live theater where the actors feed off of the audience's energy -- and movie audiences are notoriously ungentlemanly, making for a shitty watch) and don't understand in the slightest why the movies shouldn't be released straight to streaming. It's the profitable thing to do, so why target a working business model? Answer: Because you're butthurt that you are losing money with your outdated one. I just want one person to answer why movies shouldn't go straight to streaming. The only thing I've heard is the "movie experience" and that's a load of shit imho. It's better to watch alone or with a few devoted friends than some large group of idiots. And screens are plenty big enough nowadays, come on now.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 11, 2019 0:52:10 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. Absolutely it should. I’m looking forward to Triple Frontier more than most films this year and it’s exactly the type of mid-budget adult themed film that’s on the verge of extinction. I love the fact that Netflix backed a film like this with Chandor at the helm and the cast involved. And I love that I can stream it this Friday night this after I put my kids to bed. I more than likely would miss this in the theater anyways and have to wait for it on Blu-ray so I’m more than happy to watch it now on my couch with a nice glass of scotch. And if there’s a great supporting performance in it, ala Renner in The Town, then damn right it should be nominated for an Oscar.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 11, 2019 1:06:42 GMT
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. Absolutely it should. I’m looking forward to Triple Frontier more than most films this year and it’s exactly the type of mid-budget adult themed film that’s on the verge of extinction. I love the fact that Netflix backed a film like this with Chandor at the helm and the cast involved. And I love that I can stream it this Friday night this after I put my kids to bed. I more than likely would miss this in the theater anyways and have to wait for it on Blu-ray so I’m more than happy to watch it now on my couch with a nice glass of scotch. And if there’s a great supporting performance in it, ala Renner in The Town, then damn right it should be nominated for an Oscar. That makes no sense to me. Why not just debut it on Netflix and be done with it. You can't start blurring the lines between Emmys and Oscars. Would you be okay if a broadway show had a live broadcast in a NY theatre for a week before its broadway debut, and then had a BP campaign?
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 11, 2019 1:16:02 GMT
Absolutely it should. I’m looking forward to Triple Frontier more than most films this year and it’s exactly the type of mid-budget adult themed film that’s on the verge of extinction. I love the fact that Netflix backed a film like this with Chandor at the helm and the cast involved. And I love that I can stream it this Friday night this after I put my kids to bed. I more than likely would miss this in the theater anyways and have to wait for it on Blu-ray so I’m more than happy to watch it now on my couch with a nice glass of scotch. And if there’s a great supporting performance in it, ala Renner in The Town, then damn right it should be nominated for an Oscar. That makes no sense to me. Why not just debut it on Netflix and be done with it. You can't start blurring the lines between Emmys and Oscars. Would you be okay if a broadway show had a live broadcast in a NY theatre for a week before its broadway debut, and then had a BP campaign? I think the simpler solution is to allow all movies to be eligible for Oscars unless the producers to choose to submit for the Emmys instead. I don’t really give a shit if some people consider it a “tv movie” as that term should be thrown out the window for anything on Netflix. It’s not like we’re talking about no-budget hallmark shlock anymore. If a film is good enough to be nominated and win, it deserves it. Why cut out the potential best films and performances? Just because they didn’t play in a theater? Again, why dies that matter? I’ve yet to hear a single good answer to that question.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 11, 2019 1:30:49 GMT
That makes no sense to me. Why not just debut it on Netflix and be done with it. You can't start blurring the lines between Emmys and Oscars. Would you be okay if a broadway show had a live broadcast in a NY theatre for a week before its broadway debut, and then had a BP campaign? I think the simpler solution is to allow all movies to be eligible for Oscars unless the producers to choose to submit for the Emmys instead. I don’t really give a shit if some people consider it a “tv movie” as that term should be thrown out the window for anything on Netflix. It’s not like we’re talking about no-budget hallmark shlock anymore. If a film is good enough to be nominated and win, it deserves it. Why cut out the potential best films and performances? Just because they didn’t play in a theater? Again, why dies that matter? I’ve yet to hear a single good answer to that question. So you're saying that for example, Native Son that was bought by HBO should premiere on HBO and they get to decide if they want either an Emmy or an Oscar?
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 11, 2019 2:01:56 GMT
I think the simpler solution is to allow all movies to be eligible for Oscars unless the producers to choose to submit for the Emmys instead. I don’t really give a shit if some people consider it a “tv movie” as that term should be thrown out the window for anything on Netflix. It’s not like we’re talking about no-budget hallmark shlock anymore. If a film is good enough to be nominated and win, it deserves it. Why cut out the potential best films and performances? Just because they didn’t play in a theater? Again, why dies that matter? I’ve yet to hear a single good answer to that question. So you're saying that for example, Native Son that was bought by HBO should premiere on HBO and they get to decide if they want either an Emmy or an Oscar? Sure, why not?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 11, 2019 2:02:23 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. 1 week = 6-7 days 4 weeks = 28-31 days. The difference is of course at least 22 days. In those 22 days, a film can expand or contrast in the number of theater showing. Theatrical films are designed for the big screen. TV Movies are designed for the small screen. When we talk about art house productions, we're talking about films which start out in at least 2 theaters and then attempt to play elsewhere. With Netflix and the example given with Triple Frontier, it's all about putting in a couple of theaters and then pull it a week later, and then compete to its intention of being a streaming service. I suppose the true argument here is let capitalism reign: If streaming services provide audiences with more options, more opportunities, and at a smaller price, then let the theater industry die. I am just curious if people think that's a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 11, 2019 2:29:10 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. 1 week = 6-7 days 4 weeks = 28-31 days. The difference is of course at least 22 days. In those 22 days, a film can expand or contrast in the number of theater showing. Theatrical films are designed for the big screen. TV Movies are designed for the small screen. When we talk about art house productions, we're talking about films which start out in at least 2 theaters and then attempt to play elsewhere. With Netflix and the example given with Triple Frontier, it's all about putting in a couple of theaters and then pull it a week later, and then compete to its intention of being a streaming service. I suppose the true argument here is let capitalism reign: If streaming services provide audiences with more options, more opportunities, and at a smaller price, then let the theater industry die. I am just curious if people think that's a good thing. But what’s so important about theatrical films that those should be eligible for Oscars whereas streaming films should not? Certainly not the quality of the film of the talent involved. Not anymore at least. And certainly not the fact that even if it gets a full theatrical run the majority of people that see the film will still do so via streaming/cable/Blu-ray, etc... I’m still waiting on a single reason why there is any relevance for awards if a movie plays in a theater or not? It’s a good thing to have more options also on Netflix in addition to the theater. These movies should still be eligible for Oscars if deserving.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 16, 2019 14:11:47 GMT
But what’s so important about theatrical films that those should be eligible for Oscars whereas streaming films should not? Certainly not the quality of the film of the talent involved. Not anymore at least. And certainly not the fact that even if it gets a full theatrical run the majority of people that see the film will still do so via streaming/cable/Blu-ray, etc... I’m still waiting on a single reason why there is any relevance for awards if a movie plays in a theater or not? It’s a good thing to have more options also on Netflix in addition to the theater. These movies should still be eligible for Oscars if deserving. With all due respect, this has been explained numerous times before. Oscars are designed for THEATRICAL films. Theatrical means films released in theaters. Emmys are designed for television and now streaming services. Asking people to make an honest attempt to make a theatrical run is not a painful request.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 16, 2019 16:54:34 GMT
But what’s so important about theatrical films that those should be eligible for Oscars whereas streaming films should not? Certainly not the quality of the film of the talent involved. Not anymore at least. And certainly not the fact that even if it gets a full theatrical run the majority of people that see the film will still do so via streaming/cable/Blu-ray, etc... I’m still waiting on a single reason why there is any relevance for awards if a movie plays in a theater or not? It’s a good thing to have more options also on Netflix in addition to the theater. These movies should still be eligible for Oscars if deserving. With all due respect, this has been explained numerous times before. Oscars are designed for THEATRICAL films. Theatrical means films released in theaters. Emmys are designed for television and now streaming services. Asking people to make an honest attempt to make a theatrical run is not a painful request. With all due respect in return, no it hasn’t. The only explanation is “that’s how it’s always been.” For better or worse Netflix has changed the game. What the term “TV Movie” meant in the previous decades is no longer applicable to what Netflix is producing. The quality and talent involved is the same for both Netflix and theatrical movies. I also find it ironic that you state Oscars are designed for theatrical films and yet the voting base watches the majority of them via screeners to make all of their decisions. So again, why does it matter if the film was in theaters separate from that or on Netflix?
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 16, 2019 21:31:39 GMT
Well, I still think how Netflix handled Tripler Frontier's release should disqualify it for the Oscars. I'm in LA and the only theatre near me was in IPIC and was out of the way and not cheap. I can see if you are a low budget distributor who can't afford a big release but that is not what we are dealing with here. Netflix gets $13.99 min from 53 mil people per month just in the US alone. They ain't broke.
Anyway, Speilberg and the head of Netflix met for dinner in Hollywood the other day and I'm sure how to handle this was topic number one.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 18, 2019 21:09:20 GMT
Well, I still think how Netflix handled Tripler Frontier's release should disqualify it for the Oscars. I'm in LA and the only theatre near me was in IPIC and was out of the way and not cheap. I can see if you are a low budget distributor who can't afford a big release but that is not what we are dealing with here. Netflix gets $13.99 min from 53 mil people per month just in the US alone. They ain't broke. Anyway, Speilberg and the head of Netflix met for dinner in Hollywood the other day and I'm sure how to handle this was topic number one. Obviously I disagree but I don’t think you need to worry about Triple Frontier coming remotely close to any Oscar noms.
|
|
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 27, 2019 17:42:18 GMT
The Apple TV+ thread reminded me that I was going to write a proper reply to this but eventually forgot. Kicking and screaming because some people want theatrical movies to be theatrical movies is rather silly. Hmm, I don't know about that. Is it more or less silly than kicking and screaming about the exact number of days, hours and minutes that a theatrical release must last in order to meet arbitrary demands and qualify as a True Scotsman? I and others in this thread have repeatedly asked why the rules must be changed, why a day-and-date release srategy is inherently bad, and why film awards must be inextricably tied to theatrical releases. The general response to the latter question can basically be summed up as "it should be like that because it's always been like that": Once again: by definition, being released in theaters is what makes a film theatrical. If Netflix releases Triple Frontier (to use a more current example that's already been discussed) in 1 (one) commercial theater that's open to ticket-buying audiences, then Triple Frontier automatically qualifies as a theatrical release and therefore meets the criteria that the Oscars have always had in place. Any attempt to diminish that and say "but it's not, like, a real theatrical film because it doesn't feel like one" is arbitrarily moving the goalposts. It's targetting a specific company for a practice that's always been in place, and which nobody has ever had an issue with. Also, since when are Emmys for television and streaming services? You casually dropped that into the conversation as if it were a matter of fact, when it's actually the entire point of contention here. Where does it say that? Who determined it? That's not an absolute definition. If it were, Spielberg wouldn't be proposing any new rules to these awards ceremonies, because clear rules would already be in place. That's merely the definition that best suits your preferences, not a fact. Other than that, the general response to the questions that have been posed throughout this thread seems to boil down to the notion that there's an inherent superiority to the theatrical experience that needs to be protected: My response to this is as follows. As of today, I've been to a movie theater 41 times this year so far. (That number is surprisingly easy to pull off when you do lots of double features, know when and where to go to watch screenings at cheaper, more affordable prices, have close friends who are very much into film and up for watching almost anything, and -- most importantly -- have absolutely no self control at all, which is clearly my case.) The vast majority of movies that I see, I see in cinemas. I happen to live in a big enough city that I get every major blockbuster in 3D/IMAX/what have you, as well as a very wide catalogue of foreign/arthouse titles in limited release. In addition to that, I also happen to live near not one but two art galleries that have huge movie screens and which constantly host film festivals and play classic films every day. As you can imagine, I check their schedules religiously. Those galleries also happen to be State-subsidized, meaning those screenings are open to all audiences and totally for free. I got to watch my first Lynch, Godard, Hitchcock, Miyazaki, Buñuel, Resnais, Jodorowsky, Billy Wilder, Sergio Leone, Jacques Demy, Claire Denis, Agnès Varda and Marx Brothers films in a movie theater for free, plus some Kubrick, Scorsese, Fellini, Spike Lee, Mike Nichols, Polanski, Buster Keaton, Von Trier, Cuarón etc. titles as well. All of this is to say that movie theaters turning into Blockbusters is my worst nightmare, and if you try to take the theatrical experience away from me, I'll have to feed you your own gonads to express how I feel about it. I get your point, and I also get Spielberg's. I too love the experience of watching movies in the biggest possible screen. H o w e v e r, I'm also sensible enough to recognize that my situation is incredibly fortunate. Most people don't live within walking distance of multiplexes, arthouse theaters and art galleries like the ones I described; most people can't afford to go to the movies that often, even if we're talking about free or heavily discounted screenings; most people don't have the flexibility of schedule, the adaptable work hours and/or the childless freedom that would allow them to just up and go out to see a movie whenever they feel like, the way I do. Unless we're talking about notable outliers like Us, chances are that most people don't even live in regions where original, adult-oriented projects can compete with $300 million studio tentpoles for space at the multiplex. I'm very much aware of how lucky I am that 90% of Cannes/Venice/Berlin winners eventually wind up playing a few blocks away from me. Hell, like Martin said, a lot of film fans don't even like going to the theater, and would much rather just stay at home and watch whatever they want by themselves. The theatrical experience is wonderful for some, but it's also a privilege that's completely out of reach for most people, and with incessantly rising ticket prices, it'll only continue to get more and more excludent as time goes by. I go to the movies an obscene number of times each year and I'm kinda pissed off that I didn't get to watch the latest Coen bros. project on a big screen, but it'd be massively hypocritical of me not to recognize that there's something very bothersome and elitist about insisting on equating "true cinema" with "watching stuff in movie theaters", which a lot of people simply can't afford to do even if they want to. Netflix's model has its own roster of issues, but streaming as a whole carries with it the potential to allow films to reach a much wider audience and make cinema more democratic. That's where things are headed, and it's foolish not to embrace it, because there's no turning back at this point. You can try and delay it, you can try and ensure that Green Book wins Best Picture over Roma in a frenzied bid to ensure that the status quo holds on for dear life for another year or two, but there's a seismic change going on in how the public consumes content, and the industry needs to adapt to that. The music business has understood this and recognized that streaming is the new dominant method of consumption; Hollywood needs to catch up as well, because no one will stop downloading/streaming films from here on out. The answer is to find a way to let both models (theatrical + streaming) coexist to cater to both types of movie fans, however naive that idea may be. Amazon seems to be doing that, even when it backfires financially (see Suspiria's box-office results); hopefully Netflix gets there too. I know you're gonna say "that's great, but what does it have to do with the Oscars?", and to that I'll refer to what others have pointed out better than I could: what do theaters have to do with the Oscars? What makes that the correct parameter to determine something's eligibility? Let's set aside the obvious fact that awards ceremonies, as fun as they are to predict, are nothing but arbitrary popularity contests that do not dictate quality or impact. Let's leave that self-evident truth in the backburner just for a little while and talk hypotheticals here. The Oscars date back to a time when movie theaters were the only source to go to to watch a film; they've resisted for almost a whole century, but the industry no longer works the way it did back in 1927. There are other ways to make and access cinema now, and I simply don't see what we gain by establishing that kind of restriction when determining what can or can't come to the playground. There are several no-budget filmmakers out there dropping content on platforms like YouTube or Vimeo that are better, more captivating, more honest and more artful than some of the stuff that's winning televised awards and playing in 3,000 theaters. (Hell, I've seen web series on YouTube that are funnier and more inventive than what's on network TV. Because sometimes, things that are expensive... are worse.) Obviously I don't expect those films to be paid attention to or compete for anything. I'm only using this extreme example to make my central point in this thread clearer: cinema is cinema regardless of where it screens, and for any awards body to establish that kind of requirement ("must play in theaters for X weeks") means they'll wind up isolating and ignoring a lot of worthwhile content for no good reason at all. For some Academy members to stomp their feet and proclaim "no theatrical release, no play!" is nothing but pure hypocrisy, considering that the vast majority of voters see the winners and nominees on screeners anyway. They're watching the Best Picture lineup at home on their TV sets, just like most of the public, so what's the theatrical release requirement good for other than to earn them more money? What's the difference between an Oscar voter watching Roma on Netflix, and an Oscar voter watching The Post on screener DVDs that Fox pressed and sent out by the hundreds? Because Spielberg didn't stop the latter from happening. (On that note: how many of this season's Oscar nominees did you guys watch in theaters? How many of your favorite films from the past few years did you actually see in a cinema? If streaming is your most often favored method of film consumption, then maybe you should reassess your current position on this matter.) And finally (because I've ranted enough already), I'll go back to the first point that I stressed out originally: the films that we actually watch and discuss in this board have been encountering more and more difficulties in getting "proper" theatrical releases. The likes of Spielberg, Nolan and Tarantino don't need to worry about that because they're household names that can get anything greenlit based exclusively on their involvement, but the fact is that if you're an auteur willing to make challenging content and you're not one of those three men, things aren't looking very bright. Non-franchise independent projects are bleeding money, and very few actually turn a profit on their theatrical runs alone. The traditional system simply cannot support them for much longer, because the audience that's willing to go out and buy tickets to watch them on the big screen is lessening every year. Either we change the avenues to get those types of films funded and released or they'll simply die out. There's a reason why most big-name filmmakers are flocking to streaming services now, and if Spielberg wants to shut those people out based on a technicality, then the Oscars will continue to sink in relevance. When you choose the number of weeks between the theatrical premiere and the Netflix debut as your hill to die on, that means saying no to Scorsese, Cuarón and the Coens and yes to Marvel, Bryan Singer and Peter Farrelly. Great news for Spielberg and the studios, but not for the popularity contest.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Mar 27, 2019 18:12:42 GMT
As of today, I've been to a movie theater 41 times this year so far. ...In 2019? Sheeeeit. That's about what I average in an entire year, and people think I'm crazy Respect, though, obviously.
|
|
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 27, 2019 18:13:39 GMT
Would you be okay if a broadway show had a live broadcast in a NY theatre for a week before its broadway debut, and then had a BP campaign? Totally, yes. If that enactment of the Broadway show is shot, edited and screened in cinemas, then it becomes a different medium. It's no longer theater, it's film. The play is one thing, the movie that's made out of it is another. Al Pacino did exactly that with Salomé; they performed that play in like 2006 or so, and then Pacino decided to record it and turn it into two different films. I'd have no problem with either of them competing for movie awards because that's exactly what they are. Blurring the lines between mediums happens all the time, and I think that experimentation should always be welcome. Joe Wright's Anna Karenina was pretty divisive (and far less stripped-down and bare bones than Pacino's project, admittedly), but it also counts as an example of what we're talking about here, given that the whole thing was performed and captured on a theater stage. It was an attempt to blend two different languages together, but was still clearly a film. Louis C.K.'s miniseries Horace & Pete (which I posted about a few weeks ago) is basically filmed theater; each episode is an extended succession of static long takes taking place in two settings with very theatrical stage directions, extended soliloquies and even intermissions, yet it was hailed as a brilliant piece of television precisely because it fused different mediums and languages in an unexpected way. I have no problem categorizing it as TV. (Also, what you're describing is not terribly far from what I think Tom Hooper's Cats adaptation will wind up being anyways, so... yeah. )
|
|
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 27, 2019 18:19:32 GMT
As of today, I've been to a movie theater 41 times this year so far. ...In 2019? Sheeeeit. That's about what I average in an entire year, and people think I'm crazy Respect, though, obviously. Yeah. I'm not exactly proud of it, but I wouldn't say I regret it either, so eh. Doesn't stop me from working, exercising and socializing, so I guess I'm not in intervention territory just yet.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Mar 27, 2019 18:53:44 GMT
BREAKING NEWS:
Steven Spielberg assaulted by two men wearing red Netflix hats. Says this attack was spurred by a culture claiming streaming services are capable of creating film and television as well as the traditional networks.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Mar 27, 2019 19:25:25 GMT
As of today, I've been to a movie theater 41 times this year so far. Dude, that’s awesome, but... don’t you ever get burnt out? With my A-List subscription, I’m having double/triple features at least once every week. I love it, but it’s a lot of whiplash sometimes.
|
|
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 27, 2019 19:44:48 GMT
As of today, I've been to a movie theater 41 times this year so far. Dude, that’s awesome, but... don’t you ever get burnt out? With my A-List subscription, I’m having double/triple features at least once every week. I love it, but it’s a lot of whiplash sometimes. Sometimes, yeah. The first couple months of the year are always the busiest because that's when 50-60% of the awards contenders come out, so in January/February I'm basically catching up on all the stuff that we've spent the whole year hyping up/talking about, but by March or so things usually quiet down a bit. I don't do triple features, though. IIRC I've only tried it two times because I was out and had to kill time, but it's just too much for a single day. Even at home I can't really sit through that much content at once; once I get to 2 or 3 episodes of any given TV show (even if it's a half-hour comedy) I just go do something else like pick up a book or go out with a friend. I'm really not into binging, and I definitely get exhausted sometimes.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Mar 27, 2019 20:26:30 GMT
As of today, I've been to a movie theater 41 times this year so far. Dude, that’s awesome, but... don’t you ever get burnt out? With my A-List subscription, I’m having double/triple features at least once every week. I love it, but it’s a lot of whiplash sometimes. I am seeing a lot more with A-List, but do you ever find that you're going to see things that you normally wouldn't because it's the only thing available? I guess it's a mixed bag. Like I would never pay to see Smallfoot or Gretel, but the former wasn't too bad. The latter was bad for the most part, but at least I didn't really shell out any money for it. Of course, I should probably refrain from buying things from the concession stand, or sneaking my own stuff into the theater more because I know that's where they get all of their money back. On the other hand, I do rack up the $5.00 off things pretty fast, so it's not too bad. (Or I've just become conditioned to paying almost $7.00 for a regular sized drink. but also )
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Mar 27, 2019 20:47:40 GMT
Dude, that’s awesome, but... don’t you ever get burnt out? With my A-List subscription, I’m having double/triple features at least once every week. I love it, but it’s a lot of whiplash sometimes. I am seeing a lot more with A-List, but do you ever find that you're going to see things that you normally wouldn't because it's the only thing available? I guess it's a mixed bag. Like I would never pay to see Smallfoot or Gretel, but the former wasn't too bad. The latter was bad for the most part, but at least I didn't really shell out any money for it. If anything, I’d say it might actually help me broaden my horizons a bit. Under the usual circumstances, I wouldn’t even consider going out of my way to watch Climax, and while I didn’t like that movie, it’s offering me chances to branch out and discover movies I’d have normally missed or neglected during the theatrical run. Even if they’re terrible, they pose no risk to me. I mean, it’s not like I’m in any rush to check out Miss Bala, but I like having the options open. But there are times when I’ve been so burnout, I considered just going home. The last time that happened was On the Basis of Sex, where after about fifteen minutes, I knew it wasn’t gonna get much better. I think “If I walk out, I’m not losing anything. I could just go shopping nearby and stretch my legs.” I didn’t do that, because at this point in my life, I can’t walk out of a movie (Remember, I watched Vampire Academy), but if I have no interest, I’ll just skip a week (sometimes, I don’t feel like watching ANY movies, at home or otherwise). But regardless of whatever personal issues affect me, I still love it, and it’s my favorite way to see movies now.
|
|
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 28, 2019 4:15:38 GMT
If anything, I’d say it might actually help me broaden my horizons a bit. Under the usual circumstances, I wouldn’t even consider going out of my way to watch Climax, and while I didn’t like that movie, it’s offering me chances to branch out and discover movies I’d have normally missed or neglected during the theatrical run. Even if they’re terrible, they pose no risk to me. I mean, it’s not like I’m in any rush to check out Miss Bala, but I like having the options open. But there are times when I’ve been so burnout, I considered just going home. The last time that happened was On the Basis of Sex, where after about fifteen minutes, I knew it wasn’t gonna get much better. I think “If I walk out, I’m not losing anything. I could just go shopping nearby and stretch my legs.” I didn’t do that, because at this point in my life, I can’t walk out of a movie (Remember, I watched Vampire Academy), but if I have no interest, I’ll just skip a week (sometimes, I don’t feel like watching ANY movies, at home or otherwise). But regardless of whatever personal issues affect me, I still love it, and it’s my favorite way to see movies now. I get that. There definitely used to be instances where I sat through things simply because I felt somewhat obligated to for whatever reason. Mostly films that became so ubiquitous that I worried I'd be missing out on the conversation if I didn't check them out, or films that had been on the board's radar for so long that I felt that they had to be crossed off an imaginary list even after they got bad reviews and petered out without leaving a mark or getting any substantial buzz. I got a little burnt out after watching too much uninteresting, mediocre stuff, then became a little more selective. Which I know sounds ironic given that this year I'm going to the movies at a higher rate than I ever have before, but then again I don't go out to watch anything I don't see any potential at all in. There are times when I'm warned beforehand and do indeed wind up hating what I sat through, but even in those instances there was something to pique my interest and lead me to expect the best. Watching something just to watch it nearly always left me burnt out, and as useful as I'm sure it is, signing up for a service like A-List would certainly lead to me doing exactly that on too many occasions. It's funny that you should mention those films specifically, because today was the last day before On the Basis of Sex was pulled from theaters here, and that's exactly the type of film I'm talking about. Everything about it looks completely forgettable and dull, so what's the point of (whether in a theater or at home) sitting through 2 hours of something I know I'm probably not getting anything particularly good out of? I'm sure Felicity Jones is fine, but zzzzzzzz. (On the other hand, today was also the last day before The Mule was pulled, but a group of friends went out for pizza and I chose to join them instead. Kinda bummed that I let that one slip by me, I was quite looking forward to it. Seemed worth watching at the theater.) I'd much rather go out of my way to take a stab at something like Climax, which I was aware beforehand that I might wind up detesting but at least knew for sure I wouldn't be bored by. (I actually liked it a lot, as it turns out.)
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Apr 24, 2019 13:30:10 GMT
So basically the whole 'Spielberg is against Netflix and is gonna propose new rules to the Academy' thing has been utter bullshit concocted by Indiewire which the idiotic media and (of course) film twitter ate up without thinking twice. In fact Spielberg was never gonna even attend the April meeting at the Academy because of his work on "West Side Story". And as we can see by the new Academy updates, literally nothing new has been done regarding Netflix movies. Read this piece here: www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/business/media/steven-spielberg-netflix-academy-awards.htmlAn interesting quote for those interested in the matter: Something tells me this won't get too many retweets and overall coverage though. I wonder why
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Apr 24, 2019 14:04:20 GMT
So basically the whole 'Spielberg is against Netflix and is gonna propose new rules to the Academy' thing has been utter bullshit concocted by Indiewire which the idiotic media and (of course) film twitter ate up without thinking twice. In fact Spielberg was never gonna even attend the April meeting at the Academy because of his work on "West Side Story". And as we can see by the new Academy updates, literally nothing new has been done regarding Netflix movies. Read this piece here: www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/business/media/steven-spielberg-netflix-academy-awards.htmlAn interesting quote for those interested in the matter: Something tells me this won't get too many retweets and overall coverage though. I wonder why So pleased to hear this, and I completely re-iterate your final sentiment and eye-roll.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 24, 2019 18:20:20 GMT
I think the most interesting thing is how many people wish they could take the vote they cast for Green Book back.....I'd love to hear an interview with somebody who did that and now will be like "Oh cool I can vote for The Irishman this year right?"
|
|