|
Post by finniussnrub on Jul 6, 2020 21:04:53 GMT
Well Whitmore did win a Grammy for it, just as Hamilton won a Grammy despite winning Tonys. There's never been rules against something winning for technically the same work in different mediums and the awards that represent those mediums. There really ought to be, though, especially when it comes to the cinematic medium. Otherwise, you could make the argument that a TV re-run of Sophie's Choice could make Streep eligible for an Emmy. And now that we're entering the heyday of stage productions being broadcast in cinemas, that just opens up a massive can of worms. I don't think this should retroactively affect Whitmore or other similar cases, but going forward there should be restrictions. While I do agree there should be an actual rule rather than arbitrary decisions, I don't think that example is quite 1 to 1. The filmed version of Hamilton was filmed with intention to be delivered in the cinematic form, lightly, but it still was.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 6, 2020 21:30:24 GMT
There really ought to be, though, especially when it comes to the cinematic medium. Otherwise, you could make the argument that a TV re-run of Sophie's Choice could make Streep eligible for an Emmy. And now that we're entering the heyday of stage productions being broadcast in cinemas, that just opens up a massive can of worms. I don't think this should retroactively affect Whitmore or other similar cases, but going forward there should be restrictions. While I do agree there should be an actual rule rather than arbitrary decisions, I don't think that example is quite 1 to 1. The filmed version of Hamilton was filmed with intention to be delivered in the cinematic form, lightly, but it still was. But because it bowed on a streaming service, what dictates it as something that should be eligible for an Oscar rather than an Emmy? I just feel like the lines are still blurred, and no one's really making any kind of a stab at trying to solidify things. And I do think that simply filming a production for posterity's sake (because even if it was intended to be viewed later on as a filmed play, like Frankenstein, the performances and production itself weren't made that way, and I think it's ultimately a slippery slope) is really stretching the definition of being intended to be delivered in the cinematic form. I guess a part of it comes down to artistic intent versus commercial.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jul 6, 2020 21:40:17 GMT
While I do agree there should be an actual rule rather than arbitrary decisions, I don't think that example is quite 1 to 1. The filmed version of Hamilton was filmed with intention to be delivered in the cinematic form, lightly, but it still was. But because it bowed on a streaming service, what dictates it as something that should be eligible for an Oscar rather than an Emmy? I just feel like the lines are still blurred, and no one's really making any kind of a stab at trying to solidify things. And I do think that simply filming a production for posterity's sake (because even if it was intended to be viewed later on as a filmed play, like Frankenstein, the performances and production itself weren't made that way, and I think it's ultimately a slippery slope) is really stretching the definition of being intended to be delivered in the cinematic form. I guess a part of it comes down to artistic intent versus commercial. Well Emmy and Oscar have to be blurred somewhat this year, as Oscars made streaming entirely eligible this year as long as it was intended to be released theatrically (which this was going to be).
Although I agree the slope is slippery, this was not just for posterity as there were additional shots throughout filmed solely for the film, that were not in front of a live audience either. Still not a lot, but enough to throw it a bit into grey area, a grey area that might as well be mined, if only this year since we're looking potentially at the most barren cinematic landscape since World War II.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 6, 2020 21:43:51 GMT
But because it bowed on a streaming service, what dictates it as something that should be eligible for an Oscar rather than an Emmy? I just feel like the lines are still blurred, and no one's really making any kind of a stab at trying to solidify things. And I do think that simply filming a production for posterity's sake (because even if it was intended to be viewed later on as a filmed play, like Frankenstein, the performances and production itself weren't made that way, and I think it's ultimately a slippery slope) is really stretching the definition of being intended to be delivered in the cinematic form. I guess a part of it comes down to artistic intent versus commercial. Well Emmy and Oscar have to be blurred somewhat this year, as Oscars made streaming entirely eligible this year as long as it was intended to be released theatrically (which this was going to be).
Although I agree the slope is slippery, this was not just for posterity as there were additional shots throughout filmed solely for the film, that were not in front of a live audience either. Still not a lot, but enough to throw it a bit into grey area, a grey area that might as well be mined, if only this year since we're looking potentially at the most barren cinematic landscape since World War II.
Yeah, I just want a bit more illumination in the grey area, that's all. As an aside, it's weird that we're over halfway through the year and don't even have early prediction threads simply because we have no godly idea what's coming out. By this time, we're making bold-ass predictions we'll come to regret this time next year.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jul 6, 2020 21:50:55 GMT
Well Emmy and Oscar have to be blurred somewhat this year, as Oscars made streaming entirely eligible this year as long as it was intended to be released theatrically (which this was going to be).
Although I agree the slope is slippery, this was not just for posterity as there were additional shots throughout filmed solely for the film, that were not in front of a live audience either. Still not a lot, but enough to throw it a bit into grey area, a grey area that might as well be mined, if only this year since we're looking potentially at the most barren cinematic landscape since World War II.
Yeah, I just want a bit more illumination in the grey area, that's all. As an aside, it's weird that we're over halfway through the year and don't even have early prediction threads simply because we have no godly idea what's coming out. By this time, we're making bold-ass predictions we'll come to regret this time next year. Fair enough though out of curiosity, would you say it should be considered if it had been filmed entirely without an audience closer to say the Olivier version of Othello (which sounds like it was filmed with similar intention to this Hamilton), which is the filmed play with just some slight cinematic touches?
On the second, it is weird indeed, but after-all it is even harder to predict than usual when 95% of the slate could be potentially pushed back.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 6, 2020 21:55:21 GMT
Yeah, I just want a bit more illumination in the grey area, that's all. As an aside, it's weird that we're over halfway through the year and don't even have early prediction threads simply because we have no godly idea what's coming out. By this time, we're making bold-ass predictions we'll come to regret this time next year. Fair enough though out of curiosity, would you say it should be considered if it had been filmed entirely without an audience closer to say the Olivier version of Othello (which sounds like it was filmed with similar intention to this Hamilton), which is the filmed play with just some slight cinematic touches?
On the second, it is weird indeed, but after-all it is even harder to predict than usual when 95% of the slate could be potentially pushed back.
I think my viewpoint with it is if a paying audience is viewing it, then the performances being given are being done in the service of that audience first and foremost, whereas if you are shooting it as a film with the idea that it is being portrayed cinematically, there is the mindset that it is in service of a different medium. It's true there were some directorial flourishes that makes Hamilton (and Olivier's Othello) more dynamic than the usual filmed stage play formula, but it does feel like having your cake and eating it as well (and as we all know, revolutionaries don't historically like that kind of talk).
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Jul 6, 2020 22:23:38 GMT
Damn. I was really looking forward to being conductor of the Diggs train.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jul 6, 2020 22:49:20 GMT
Damn. I was really looking forward to being conductor of the Diggs train. Already called diggs (dibs) on it.
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Jul 6, 2020 22:58:17 GMT
Damn. I was really looking forward to being conductor of the Diggs train. Already called diggs (dibs) on it. Duel you for it. Best 2 out of 3 1 out of 1.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jul 6, 2020 23:39:40 GMT
Not sure I agree with you because I don’t think they are going to get around to making a movie of this for at least ten years and by then the cast will either be busy with other things or aged out of the roles. It’s the cast I care most about because they deserve the world. Have you seen it yet? It’s VERY theatrical. I’m not sure it would do as well as a cinematic event. To be honest, I don't think we necessarily need the original cast in order for a cinematic version to work. That's part of the magic of adaptation. We have all been fortunate enough to see the stage production filmed, but there's no reason that the film version needs any of the original actors back (or in the same roles). The only thing we need to ensure is that Tom Hooper and Rob Marshall are nowhere near it when they make it. I definitely agree the cast deserves the world, but I don't want them to be anchored to these roles forever. They should have the opportunity to do other things and make their marks elsewhere. To be honest I don’t really see what their Oscar eligibility has to do with any future film that will happen eventually anyways?
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jul 7, 2020 2:46:54 GMT
Not sure I agree with you because I don’t think they are going to get around to making a movie of this for at least ten years and by then the cast will either be busy with other things or aged out of the roles. It’s the cast I care most about because they deserve the world. Have you seen it yet? It’s VERY theatrical. I’m not sure it would do as well as a cinematic event. To be honest, I don't think we necessarily need the original cast in order for a cinematic version to work. That's part of the magic of adaptation. We have all been fortunate enough to see the stage production filmed, but there's no reason that the film version needs any of the original actors back (or in the same roles). The only thing we need to ensure is that Tom Hooper and Rob Marshall are nowhere near it when they make it.I definitely agree the cast deserves the world, but I don't want them to be anchored to these roles forever. They should have the opportunity to do other things and make their marks elsewhere. Rob Marshall made Chicago so I’m still good with him.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jul 7, 2020 3:04:57 GMT
Already called diggs (dibs) on it. Duel you for it. Best 2 out of 3 1 out of 1. I was already conducting it for Blindspotting. I have seniority.
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Jul 7, 2020 3:24:33 GMT
Duel you for it. Best 2 out of 3 1 out of 1. I was already conducting it for Blindspotting. I have seniority. I concede. Well played.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jul 7, 2020 3:53:57 GMT
I was already conducting it for Blindspotting. I have seniority. I concede. Well played. We can compromise and share credit, though.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 8, 2020 12:11:10 GMT
Seems like Disney's still gonna be pushing it regardless.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jul 8, 2020 12:54:44 GMT
Seems like Disney's still gonna be pushing it regardless. The rule Variety quoted to claim that it wouldn't be eligible was part of the rules for documentary feature not general category guidelines, so it is still up in the air.
|
|
jakob
Full Member
Posts: 827
Likes: 698
|
Post by jakob on Jul 9, 2020 0:54:56 GMT
I adored it, sobbed through the last half hour, but I don’t understand whatsoever why anyone would want this to be eligible for Oscars.
It already won 11 Tony’s and a Pulitzer Prize. It’s eligible for Emmys. Why would you want a 4-year old recording of a stage show to suddenly be eligible and nominated in categories and take the places of actors in films that were acting for film. How can you nominate it for Screenplay when it doesn’t have a Screenplay? It’s a stage production, it has a script, a book, but it’s not “written for the screen”. It’s not a screenplay. Plus, there will eventually be a big, epic movie version of this musical that probably will fill up actual eligible categories. It’s a different medium that just happened to be recorded. If they had done anything specifically for this filmed version that was new, like an original song, then I would understand the need to want to push it in that category because it’s specific only to this filmed version. I just hate blurring lines like this. The same reason I’m not including it in my yearly best list or lineups. It’s definitely the event of the summer, but it’s not a traditional film.
I mean let’s say it did get nominated for a bunch of categories.. then Disney+ decides to do another filmed version with the more current cast, but the same production, would it be right to have that film be eligible? It’s a different film but it’s the same show.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 10, 2020 2:35:57 GMT
I adored it, sobbed through the last half hour, but I don’t understand whatsoever why anyone would want this to be eligible for Oscars. It already won 11 Tony’s and a Pulitzer Prize. It’s eligible for Emmys. Why would you want a 4-year old recording of a stage show to suddenly be eligible and nominated in categories and take the places of actors in films that were acting for film. How can you nominate it for Screenplay when it doesn’t have a Screenplay? It’s a stage production, it has a script, a book, but it’s not “written for the screen”. Mike Leigh's films don't have scripts in the traditional sense and yet those have been nominated for Oscars. And it clearly is a film in its streaming form even if none of what you're seeing what envisioned for film. It's more to do IMO with how a thing is packaged, sold and consumed that determines if it's a film, not the content. Also worth noting how the mediums are different. The experience of watching this on Broadway and watching it in your living room with closeups and camera angles is not the same. You're not getting the experience of watching this as a play in the way that people who go to plays experience plays. The treatment of the material is cinematic. I mean, I don't have much stake in Disney being up for Oscars but I know that it'll be in my personal lineups for sure.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jul 11, 2020 0:41:16 GMT
I adored it, sobbed through the last half hour, but I don’t understand whatsoever why anyone would want this to be eligible for Oscars. It already won 11 Tony’s and a Pulitzer Prize. It’s eligible for Emmys. Why would you want a 4-year old recording of a stage show to suddenly be eligible and nominated in categories and take the places of actors in films that were acting for film. How can you nominate it for Screenplay when it doesn’t have a Screenplay? It’s a stage production, it has a script, a book, but it’s not “written for the screen”. It’s not a screenplay. Plus, there will eventually be a big, epic movie version of this musical that probably will fill up actual eligible categories. It’s a different medium that just happened to be recorded. If they had done anything specifically for this filmed version that was new, like an original song, then I would understand the need to want to push it in that category because it’s specific only to this filmed version. I just hate blurring lines like this. The same reason I’m not including it in my yearly best list or lineups. It’s definitely the event of the summer, but it’s not a traditional film. I mean let’s say it did get nominated for a bunch of categories.. then Disney+ decides to do another filmed version with the more current cast, but the same production, would it be right to have that film be eligible? It’s a different film but it’s the same show. Well Jonathan Groff came back to the production just to be in the filmed version, so should he be eligible at least?
|
|