Apple’s “Coda” Wins Historic Oscar for Best Picture at the Academy Awards
apple.com
apple.com
Whenever I see a movie/series starring a minority getting high awards I always think about if it was awarded for actually being good, or just because it had a cast filled with a lesser represented group and juries didn't want to come off as racist.
Perhaps the last was the second time such a film has been snubbed by the Academy, after "Brokeback Mountain" was infamously passed over by "Crash" in 2005.
Admittedly this is a sample size of 1.
[1] The spell checker in Firefox recognises ableist as a valid word where it would not have done so only a few years back. This is not language evolution, it is revolutionary language.
The word you’re looking for is “bigot/bigotry”.
I don't think you actually really follow the Oscars so much as complain about a false sense of virtue signaling
Movie, not individual actors. Movies with a cast of only this unfavoured identity class are unlikely to gain any awards.
> The majority of films that have won in the past have been that way too
The past is not now, my comment relates to the here and now ('is unlikely to', not 'was unlikely to'). The obsession with D.I.E [1] is a recent phenomenon.
> I don't think you actually really follow the Oscars
There you are right, I don't. I do read quite a bit about it but I never watched any of those shows, it is just not my thing.
> complain about a false sense of virtue signalling
False? We're talking about the organisation which went full Soviet by proclaiming movies needed to abide to their D.I.E. rules to be considered for academy awards [2] as part of their D.I.E. plan [3]. Read [2] and report back on whether this is anything but virtue signalling.
[1] Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
[2] https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-establishes-representati...
[2] https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-announces-next-phase-equ...
— it’s a secret ballot
— the members of the jury aren’t widely known, as far as I can tell
— they care little for the reputation of the institution itself
— those that care are more likely to hate it for being snubbed in the past
— those that won obviously deserved the price and feel strongly that a meritocracy abhors loyalty
= this is a great chance to really vote with the heart, including settling a few scores with any group you secretly loath especially because “political correctness” forces you to keep it to yourself the rest of the year
Bonus inconsistency:
— there have been all-deaf movies before that didn’t win
Some groups were systematically or implicitly excluded from honors such as the Oscars for centuries. It’s great to see the trend bending towards justice. Unfortunately, they sometimes see their legitimate success undermined by various “but you didn’t really win the price/get hired/become President” strategies.
So… congratulations to being part of the problem, I guess.
I'm sure someone at Netflix is cheesed with how quickly and easily Apple can just start drinking their milkshake, though. I remember there being a lot of pushing of ROMA and felt like it was a major nail biter for Netflix to get that to take home anything. But if we're being honest...Netflix doesn't actually try to make a lot of very good things to begin with. Though The Power of the Dog was quite notable, still a bit...sterile.
All that being said, at least HBO has another "quality, not quantity" competitor in the ring, at long last.
ATV+ doesn't have the glut of content that Netflix has, but pretty much all of their stuff is 8/10 or over on most rating sites. They might not be to your exact tastes, but they're still damn good.
AppleTV+'s take on Foundation is the best thing that could possibly happen to the books.
Asimov was a bad writer, and the product of his era. His ideas about Seldon crises were rather good, but everything around was just bad. People don't have dialogs, they proselytise and have monologues at each other. Women are non-existent, or serve as furniture (except maybe two characters in both series combined). There's a huge disconnect between what technology is imagined to do (FTL, detailed holographic maps of the Galaxy) and how it's used (calculations done with pen-and-paper, newspapers and communications printed out even on FTL ships). And so on.
Foundation series took the premise and ran away with it. And good for them.
Then we jump in time, the previous people are mostly dead and a new group of people talk in a room.
It's not exactly riveting stuff for TV.
Over the last 2-3 years, I sign up when a season of a show I hear good things about is completely out (Ted Lasso, Severance, etc) and then watch another show or movie or two for the month it takes me to finish that season.
I have never bumped into another show that made it worth renewing for a consecutive month, despite the show that I came for being totally worth the one month, and there being other shows that are strongly "related".
I will admit the production quality of the shows is very high on average, but that's not the same thing as the shows being very good.
Take Schmigadoon! for example. It's specifically aimed at people who love musicals and can spot all of the homages in it. Without that knowledge it's just a slightly above average comedy with singing bits.
The Morning Show is about women struggling in a workplace, not exactly something that would hook a random midwest dudebro, but still a damn good show for those who it's directed towards.
Can't really take a comment seriously that puts Apple's film output over this. Besides Coda has Apple produced or even just distributed anything of comparable quality?
Instead they end up getting rated on drivel like "The Woman in the House Across the Street from the Girl in the Window" because that's what ends up getting pushed to subscribers to see.
If you get some magical “street cred” in the industry for simply being the party to win the bidding war over a film after it was already produced, shown at a film festivals, and critically acclaimed, then yeah, that seems at least silly if not creepy. Surely there’s a big different between a company funding the creation of a film, and a company just buying the rights to stream a completed film.
Or does Apple get extra goodwill from the logo almost assuredly in many of the pockets and homes of people in the industry?
Also when voting, the distributor is not highlighted. So I doubt the brand had any effect on voting itself.
Having worked on a movie that had a (short, failed) Oscar push, you cannot underestimate who important (and expensive) promotion is to even just getting a nomination. Had CODA remained an indie darling on the festival circuit it almost certainly would not have won.
I mean, there was reportedly a fierce bidding war to acquire the film, between (at least) Amazon and Apple. I don’t even think you can credit Apple for some unique insight into the potential of the film.
So maybe Apple is spending more money on better talent. Or maybe they're just funneling it better (big productions like Foundations instead of a bunch of cooking shows).
Is that really funnelling it 'better' though. I bet a lot more people watched that "bunch of cooking shows" that watched Foundation. Squid Games was one of the most talked about shows on TV since Game of Thrones when it came out and had a total budget that was probably less than the catering budget for 1 season of GoT.
Netflix seems to be betting big on the fact that that 50 weird quirky 1 million dollar shows of varying quality will bring in more total viewers than a single 50 million dollar prestige show.
This is expected. Netflix were the trailblazers. Of course everyone who comes after them will have an easier job doing it.
A24/Searchlight do the same thing.
Acquiring rights and succeeding in distribution is an art and unfortunately $$ doesn’t = success.
CODA is the third remake of an excellent story, with the second remake, with Luane, being unbeatable in Europe. Nobody in Europe wants to see this attempt, but for the American market it's huge. It was already the biggest film at Sundance. So why not, for their domestic market it's good enough. But that's why the big studios bailed on it.
It was a crime that Roma was skipped over in 2019 for freaking Green Book.
In the early years of streaming the academy tried very hard to shut Netflix out of the Oscars. The company had to fight hard (including buying a theater in LA to do limited releases to satisfy their requirements) to get streaming films on equal footing. Only last year did they finally allow streaming-only releases to be considered for the awards.
"Green Book" had a "white savior" trope which is now considered non-Narrative and shunned by people who support the Current Thing.
Interestingly Apple was sold the "worldwide" rights to Coda after rights were already partially sold to other territories all over the world. Apparently, Sun Distribution Group had the rights for Latin America and Eagle Pictures in Italy.
"Andrea Goretti, CEO of Italy’s Eagle Pictures, told Variety that he received a call from Pathé February 1 inquiring if the distributor would be willing to sell back Italian rights. "
Was Apple able to resolve this with their big vault of cash?
[1] https://www.indiewire.com/2021/03/apple-coda-sundance-25-mil...
IIRC, Netflix is able to run a logo credit for themselves in Star Trek Discovery despite only having licensing rights, but it gives the impression that it's a Netflix show (that being said, their buying the rights to stream it is de facto a large swath of their production budget)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoviePass#MoviePass_Venture_fi...
Quibi and Yahoo Screens both took the "let's throw money at it" approach, and neither succeeded.
Apple has demonstrated a third viable approach, which is having strong pre-existing distribution. I got so many nags from Apple through emails and notifications on every Apple device I own about 1 free year of Apple TV, that eventually I said "Fine, I'll watch Ted Lasso."
This is also what Amazon and Facebook did by having people constantly on their site, but I think Apple's success in their much shorter streaming existence is far more impressive.