Spielberg to push for new Oscars rules that exclude streaming movies
engadget.com
engadget.com
This would be a good opportunity for Netflix and Amazon and other streaming services to team up and start their own awards show.
He seems to think that Roma sticks to the letter of the law, but not the spirit and thus wants the law changed. Roma, the argument goes, had a limited token theatrical release solely to qualify it for the Oscars, but the intention was always that people where meant to see the movie on 'TV' rather than at the cinema.
A lot of non-US (and even US) films do this as well. The distributors do a limited release to qualify for the awards, and bank on it winning the awards so that they can do a wide release of an "award-winning" film.
Nor would they be able to sit through 2001 A Space Odyssey. The quality of the movie hasn't changed but the audience has.
I love betting people they can't sit through one of the best movies ever. I have yet to see some under 40 make it through.
I don't think it's age. There are plenty of older folk who used to be able to appreciate slower works — be it film, music, literature, or art — but no longer have quite the attention span for it. We appear to have managed to lower the attention span of society as a whole in the past few decades.
I kinda liked Apocalypse Now. I am not rewatching Redux, it's just too long. I have no problem rewatching the 3 extended editions of the Lord of the Ring, even one after the other.
Netflix irritates the old studio heavyweights because they basically started as a lowest-rung distributor (they used to ship rental DVDs around by mail — how entirely devoid of film business glamour!), then slowly and cleverly built themselves up into an immensely wealthy studio, thus reconstructing the tight production-distribution bond that was forbidden to the old studios. Admitting Netflix productions to Oscars is like salt in their wounds.
Cinematography and cinemas keep people give people jobs, not only while MAKING the movie (cast and crews), but for people to watch it as well. Cinemas (the actual venues) give people jobs, the crews that work there, make pop-corn, sell tickets, cleaning crews, etc.
Netflix wants us to sit on our couches and binge/rot-away [1]. The two experiences (cinema vs netflix) are not even close.
[1]: https://twitter.com/netflix/status/854100194098520064
Edit: I am not negating the usefulness of Netflix, HBO, and other online/serving platforms. But if you want to play the movies-game, you have to win it on THEIR rules. Otherwise make your own 'oscarZ' and go wild :)
There's something to be said for movie theatres as an experience or an event, but it's a stretch to argue that overcharging for popcorn and hot dogs are a public good.
Today, if I think about Hollywood, I have to think about remakes. You have to force me to watch another Marvel/DC movie, although I think they are generally very well made and I liked some characters as a kid.
Just look at the most successful Hollywood movies of 2018. There is absolutely no depth to be found here at all.
These are movies I can enjoy, but mostly while doing something on the side.
As far as depth, I can't think of a Netflix film I really remember as standing out, now Serials --I can name a bunch: The OA, Stranger Things, Haunting of Hill House, etc -- they may not have found a groove yet w/ movies but they sure have w/ original series -- though they did hit a few snags too, their Marvel world sort of fell apart, and some characters were good, some totally were lame (Iron fist esp.).
The easier route would appear to be changing the rules for the Oscars to require a wide, long, exclusive theatrical release, or some other nomenclature which will preclude streaming services, or at least cost them a significant amount of money.
If that's what he wants for the Oscars then whatever, but trying to convince people that streaming movies are technically TV sounds ridiculous. Anyway, have at it, lest it quicken the Oscar's inevitable demise.
Personally, I never really thought about the definition right now, but I think a crude definition would include something regarding runtimes since I think part of what defines a movie is its length. You can do more with additional time than a 30 or 60 minute TV episode can do. However, you can do more with a miniseries or episodic TV over the long term with regards to character development, story arcs, etc. I think the definition of a movie has to be somewhere between the individual episode and the miniseries.
By the way Hollywood almost died before when TV happened in the 60s and they survived that.
If getting people together in a room to watch is somehow important, the Oscars, Tonys, and the Opera awards should combine.
The theater experience is going to have to figure out what its USP is in the digital era. It's no longer enough to provide access to the movie.
Anecdote: my gf and her friends were gonna watch Roma on the couch until they found out it was playing at the nearest theater. They then had to devise a plan to sneak alcohol and candy into the theater, coordinate ticket purchasing using venmo, and actually head out into the rain to get there. There was a lot of buyer's remorse. Good luck, theaters.
I don't see many films in theaters because many films gain nothing by being viewed at the theater. I often see films in like Interstellar, Dunkirk, Blade Runner, etc that are an assault on the senses and have a lot to gain through theater viewing.
The question to me is- will people care? There are plenty of examples of people shirking quality for convenience.
I heard a similar argument about the (live acting) theaters. Those are still around, sure.