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 Jun 27, 2019 11:58:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jun 27, 2019 12:21:19 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 Most awards properties need to seriously revise their ideals, as they have become increasingly outdated, particularly in the 2010s.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.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jun 27, 2019 14:13:17 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 Most awards properties need to seriously revise their ideals, as they have become increasingly outdated, particularly in the 2010s.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.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Jun 27, 2019 14:40:58 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 Most awards properties need to seriously revise their ideals, as they have become increasingly outdated, particularly in the 2010s.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 no difference between television and film. When film is making 20+ episode franchises and TV is making one episode stories and both are using the same technology to do so, you can't make a clear cut.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 27, 2019 16:10:51 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.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jun 27, 2019 18:54:11 GMT
Yeah, it's such a shame that film is dying...
*looks at box office numbers showing that even a dumpster fire MIB4 can gross $50M+*
A damn, crying shame...
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jun 27, 2019 21:51:26 GMT
Then there's no difference between television and film. Completely against you on this. ...There is no difference between television and film. When film is making 20+ episode franchises and TV is making one episode stories and both are using the same technology to do so, you can't make a clear cut. Except most movies aren't franchises and the franchises aren't released week after week and aren't half hour or hour long.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Jun 27, 2019 22:13:27 GMT
...There is no difference between television and film. When film is making 20+ episode franchises and TV is making one episode stories and both are using the same technology to do so, you can't make a clear cut. Except most movies aren't franchises and the franchises aren't released week after week and aren't half hour or hour long. *most* Most TV is like that, but not all. Most movies are one-off movies, but not all. So there's no difference, because the methods of filmmaking remain the same in both cases. Some movies are franchises, some TV isn't.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jun 27, 2019 22:51:26 GMT
So once again, what exactly is wrong with winning an Emmy? This has to do with the prestige that comes with winning an Oscar. Nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 27, 2019 23:05:16 GMT
The key point is this:
Last year’s winner, Alfonso Cuaron, saw his film “Roma” in theaters three weeks before its streaming date on Netflix.
So basically the DGA will honor any window "cheat" (like Roma last year - if you think that's a cheat) and since they've never given it to any day/date film only nothing has changed anyway. They'll eventually cave in, but it's just business as usual for now really. Shrug.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jun 28, 2019 0:06:18 GMT
The key point is this: Last year’s winner, Alfonso Cuaron, saw his film “Roma” in theaters three weeks before its streaming date on Netflix.So basically the DGA will honor any window "cheat" (like Roma last year - if you think that's a cheat) and since they've never given it to any day/date film only nothing has changed anyway. They'll eventually cave in, but it's just business as usual for now really. Shrug. Netflix is going against their basic business model cause they wanna win Oscars. That's it. They have still refused to this day to release Roma viewership numbers cause they are too embarrassed to tell people how many people saw the thing.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 28, 2019 0:37:57 GMT
Not sure I really understand - Netflix isn't going against their business model at all - they'll theatrical release where they want to, like Roma last year and that actually for now is their model. They didn't release viewership because they don't do that and they still won't unless something changes telling them they can't win an Oscar unless they do.
They're pretty consistent and the DGA basically is saying nothing has changed - if you make a film as good as Roma and give it any kind of theatrical release (which Netflix will do) then same story as last year they're saying.
The Oscars aren't changing this year for them, DGA is basically staying the same - this is a nothing story as far as I can tell.....
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jun 28, 2019 0:48:57 GMT
Not sure I really understand - Netflix isn't going against their business model at all - they'll theatrical release where they want to, like Roma last year and that actually for now is their model. They didn't release viewership because they don't do that and they still won't unless something changes telling them they can't win an Oscar unless they do. They're pretty consistent and the DGA basically is saying nothing has changed - if you make a film as good as Roma and give it any kind of theatrical release (which Netflix will do) then same story as last year they're saying. The Oscars aren't changing this year for them, DGA is basically staying the same - this is a nothing story as far as I can tell..... Netflix used to only release on same date as theater. Who else do you think they are talking to in this regard? Amazon never did that. And yes, they just released viewership numbers for Adam sandler's new movie and when they see us but they never did for Roma. Had millions watched it they would have said so. Believe you me, people will see the new Scorsese movie and Netflix will release those numbers. Count on it.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 28, 2019 1:06:38 GMT
Not sure I really understand - Netflix isn't going against their business model at all - they'll theatrical release where they want to, like Roma last year and that actually for now is their model. They didn't release viewership because they don't do that and they still won't unless something changes telling them they can't win an Oscar unless they do. They're pretty consistent and the DGA basically is saying nothing has changed - if you make a film as good as Roma and give it any kind of theatrical release (which Netflix will do) then same story as last year they're saying. The Oscars aren't changing this year for them, DGA is basically staying the same - this is a nothing story as far as I can tell..... Netflix used to only release on same date as theater. Who else do you think they are talking to in this regard? Amazon never did that. And yes, they just released viewership numbers for Adam sandler's new movie and when they see us but they never did for Roma. Had millions watched it they would have said so. Believe you me, people will see the new Scorsese movie and Netflix will release those numbers. Count on it. Oh I see what you mean but isn't that just because they started to release numbers post-Roma (starting May 2019) and they aren't going to do for older titles only going forward? I mean sure they adapt their model but what's wrong with that - I mean their business model used to be competing with Blockbuster, things change and you adapt like any business. Sure they want Oscars but this OP here in this thread doesn't involve any of that at all it's just the DGA saying same deal as it was.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jun 28, 2019 1:56:10 GMT
Except most movies aren't franchises and the franchises aren't released week after week and aren't half hour or hour long. *most* Most TV is like that, but not all. Most movies are one-off movies, but not all. So there's no difference, because the methods of filmmaking remain the same in both cases. Some movies are franchises, some TV isn't. Did you really think that was convincing?
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jun 28, 2019 3:33:35 GMT
Not sure I really understand - Netflix isn't going against their business model at all - they'll theatrical release where they want to, like Roma last year and that actually for now is their model. They didn't release viewership because they don't do that and they still won't unless something changes telling them they can't win an Oscar unless they do. They're pretty consistent and the DGA basically is saying nothing has changed - if you make a film as good as Roma and give it any kind of theatrical release (which Netflix will do) then same story as last year they're saying. The Oscars aren't changing this year for them, DGA is basically staying the same - this is a nothing story as far as I can tell..... Netflix used to only release on same date as theater. Who else do you think they are talking to in this regard? Amazon never did that. And yes, they just released viewership numbers for Adam sandler's new movie and when they see us but they never did for Roma. Had millions watched it they would have said so. Believe you me, people will see the new Scorsese movie and Netflix will release those numbers. Count on it. With The Report being released on Amazon Prime,only two weeks after it's been out in theaters, I do think we'll see Amazon be a lot more like Netflix going forward. It's a shame because I think that The Report seems like its in limbo land though where it won't be pushed for Emmys, even though it seems like something that might play better on a smaller screen than a bigger one, but it's movie award chances are pretty much nil now because of this release strategy except for Original Screenplay if it's a really weak year or something. I do think one day they'll merge television and movie awards together, but right now everything just seems a mess. I think it hurts theaters by only releasing something for one or two weeks at the theater because most people can wait unless it's an event movie. At the same time, I think that going forward that everything will premiere on a streaming service the same day as it premieres at the theater except for maybe really big movies like Endgame. We're not to that stage yet though, and so it feels like streaming services, imo, have an advantage because they don't have to worry about the 90 day window from theater to home video, and they don't have to release their box office figures either whereas so many pundits now are quick to proclaim that a film that had Oscar buzz is dead if it shows signs of weakness during its opening weekend. I don't know if Widows or Steve Jobs would have done any better awards wise without pundits immediately pouncing on their poor showing their first weekends, but it seems unfair to them since they wouldn't have had that bad aura around them if they were Netflix or now Amazon films too.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jun 28, 2019 4:41:57 GMT
Netflix used to only release on same date as theater. Who else do you think they are talking to in this regard? Amazon never did that. And yes, they just released viewership numbers for Adam sandler's new movie and when they see us but they never did for Roma. Had millions watched it they would have said so. Believe you me, people will see the new Scorsese movie and Netflix will release those numbers. Count on it. Oh I see what you mean but isn't that just because they started to release numbers post-Roma (starting May 2019) and they aren't going to do for older titles only going forward? I mean sure they adapt their model but what's wrong with that - I mean their business model used to be competing with Blockbuster, things change and you adapt like any business. Sure they want Oscars but this OP here in this thread doesn't involve any of that at all it's just the DGA saying same deal as it was. Birdbox numbersNetflix released those numbers for Bird Box right in the middle of the Oscar campaign. The article even questions why Netflix choose to not release numbers for Roma when it had been out for weeks. They have been releasing numbers for their released but my opinion is they choose not to release Roma cause they were so low. The whole entire point of Netflix was to give their customers the experience of not having to wait months to watch a movie that if you wanna go to the theatre then do so and if you wanna watch it in your home then so be it. I think they changed things cause they had to attract talent. Take The Highway Man for example, why in hell was that even released in theatres a week before it was released on Netflix? To qualify for Oscars cause it is probably how they were able to buy the movie but what's the point when you can't even find a theatre to watch the movie.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jun 28, 2019 4:50:02 GMT
Netflix used to only release on same date as theater. Who else do you think they are talking to in this regard? Amazon never did that. And yes, they just released viewership numbers for Adam sandler's new movie and when they see us but they never did for Roma. Had millions watched it they would have said so. Believe you me, people will see the new Scorsese movie and Netflix will release those numbers. Count on it. With The Report being released on Amazon Prime,only two weeks after it's been out in theaters, I do think we'll see Amazon be a lot more like Netflix going forward. It's a shame because I think that The Report seems like its in limbo land though where it won't be pushed for Emmys, even though it seems like something that might play better on a smaller screen than a bigger one, but it's movie award chances are pretty much nil now because of this release strategy except for Original Screenplay if it's a really weak year or something. I do think one day they'll merge television and movie awards together, but right now everything just seems a mess. I think it hurts theaters by only releasing something for one or two weeks at the theater because most people can wait unless it's an event movie. At the same time, I think that going forward that everything will premiere on a streaming service the same day as it premieres at the theater except for maybe really big movies like Endgame. We're not to that stage yet though, and so it feels like streaming services, imo, have an advantage because they don't have to worry about the 90 day window from theater to home video, and they don't have to release their box office figures either whereas so many pundits now are quick to proclaim that a film that had Oscar buzz is dead if it shows signs of weakness during its opening weekend. I don't know if Widows or Steve Jobs would have done any better awards wise without pundits immediately pouncing on their poor showing their first weekends, but it seems unfair to them since they wouldn't have had that bad aura around them if they were Netflix or now Amazon films too. I remember reading the article on Deadline where Amazon explained they were going to take Netflix's approach and of course they only did so cause it didn't stop them from winning Oscars. However, they still were not able to win the top prize. You are right about Oscar contenders losing their buzz cause the movie bombed at the box office. Netflix didn't release Roma's numbers cause it bombed on Netflix. 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.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 28, 2019 10:38:32 GMT
With The Report being released on Amazon Prime,only two weeks after it's been out in theaters, I do think we'll see Amazon be a lot more 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?"
|
|
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 Jun 29, 2019 4:53:20 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.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jun 29, 2019 8:26:39 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.
|
|
|
Post by akittystang on Jun 29, 2019 9:55:08 GMT
These rules will be rolled back once day and date become the norm with movies that are considered "Oscar-fare." Honestly, at this point, there isn't much of a difference between television and film except one happens to play at a theater and is typically between an hour and half to two and half hours. From my understanding, films are usually projected in 2k (I could be wrong) unless you go to an IMAX showing. The average TV set sold these days is 4K with HDR. Content that isn't 4k is (with most, if not all sets) upscaled to 4k. 1080p is upscaled beautifully. 720p looks great too, 480p (standard definition) even looks quite good (though 360p and below starts to show weakness, you can't upscale what isn't there). Prices are even reasonable (at least here in the US). Honestly, because of convenience and quality being about the same or better, I'd rather stay home and watch a film in my own home, unless it's an absolute must see. Some might argue that the sound isn't nearly as good as going to the theater on lower priced 4k tv out of the box, as-is. If you want to go crazy (and you don't have neighbors that would complain), you can always invest in a reasonably price sound bar, or even a Dolby Atoms capable sound system if you have money to burn. 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. Well. I should've looked further down in the thread! Totally agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Jun 29, 2019 12:27:27 GMT
(on a more serious note, Zeb31 AGAIN puts all my thoughts into an elegant, well-written post. Ugh)
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jul 3, 2019 2:02:11 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.
|
|
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 3, 2019 23:14:16 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.)
|
|