Netflix Makes Statement In Wake Of Steven Spielberg's Attempt To Block Streaming Giant From Oscars (deadline.com) 176
Netflix has addressed Steven Spielberg's concerns, after the legendary director indicated he'd throw his weight behind making Oscars harder to reach for Netflix films like "Roma". From a report: The streaming giant didn't name Spielberg directly in its tweet, but considering his views on Netflix films and the Academy Awards, it seems like the statement is associated with the director's thoughts about their participation as contenders in award season. "We love cinema," the official Netflix Twitter account wrote. They continue with a list of things they loved including: Access for people who can't always afford, or live in towns without, theaters; letting everyone, everywhere enjoy releases at the same time; and giving filmmakers more ways to share art. "These things are not mutually exclusive," they concluded in a tweet that could be considered a clap back at the filmmaker. IndieWire reported last week that Spielberg, who serves as the current governor of the Academy's directors branch, intends to argue in favor of changing the Oscars' rules to prevent streaming services from entering the campaign field at the Academy Board of Governors' next meeting. Because Netflix is a home-viewing platform, critics like Spielberg say that it's better-suited for the Emmys, which celebrate TV, a medium inherent to home-viewing.
Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:5, Insightful)
More like, "Old man succeeds and becomes wealthy, pulls ladder up behind him so nobody else can follow."
Fuck Spielberg. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Re:Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:5, Insightful)
It is unfair though that the same movie can be up for an Oscar and an Emmy. If Netflix wants an Oscar then they need to show the film in a cinema.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:5, Funny)
we consume 100% at home or friends.
Don't your unconsumed friends ever get suspicious?
Re: (Score:3)
Ha! Dunno why, but this actually made me laugh.
Re:Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:5, Insightful)
But why the "Oscars"? We already have the Emmy awards for television. If people stop going to the cinema then the Oscars should just decline in interest rather than trying to morph into something else. Or maybe the Golden Globes gets more status over time than the Oscars. But just because home television is popular is not a reason by itself that home television movies should be considered for a cinematic award, a better reason is needed than popularity.
The dividing line between television and cinema is pretty easy to see, and so the divide between Emmys and Oscars should be too. The problem only comes with an existing grey area: the movie is shown in a cinema but can also show up television (later on video as with many indie films, or concurrently in the case of streaming). Roma was only up for consideration because it was indeed shown exclusively in the theaters (for three weeks). Where this is annoying Spielberg and maybe others, is that this was primarily a streaming movie and the cinema portion was just a tiny blip done as a technicality to get an Oscar consideration.
Spielberg just gave his opinion, others in the academy will disagree. But the rules belong to the academy and it's up to them. But Netflix did seem to be playing very close to the edge of the rules here.
Re:Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:5, Interesting)
Spielberg gave his opinion, _as the guy that heads the governing board that decides such things._
I'd like to know his opinion on shorts, which show in a few theaters in LA and NY environs two weeks before the awards.
The Academy Awards predate television and were a place for both long-form and short-form media long before the Emmys were around.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but most films/movies are made through the studio system, large or independent, then find distribution on TV or in theaters later.
The problem is that movie theaters are a racket that are in cahoots with big studios to keep non-traditional studio fare out of the theaters in the first place, which is why Netflix had to directly rent auditoriums to be Oscar eligible. They were not skirting the rules, they were busting up a monopoly. And I welcome the practice.
Maybe I'm dumb and don't have a memory, but I don't recall Roma being up for any Emmys. I don't recall any movie being up for both an Emmy and an Oscar. I don't know if it's an unwritten rule, but if it is I think a nice compromise would be for both governing bodies to allow a film to be up for one or the other, not both.
Spielberg is and always has been the mouthpiece for the big studios, and he's just the figurehead the studios are putting forth to protect themselves from more nimble 'rogue' studios like Netflix from eating their lunch.
Re: Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:1)
Maybe if films want to later be distributed on disc or on Netflix, they should be required to relinquish any Oscar awards they have recieved. We wouldn't want those lovely cinematic creations sullied by being viewed on mere tee vees. So any of Stephan Speilbergo's (the cheap mexican equivalent) films that are available for home viewing should lose their Oscar status.
Re:Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure what the solution is
The solution is simple. Stop watching shitty awards shows. Thankfully, the masses are starting to take my advice.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what the solution is
The solution is simple. Stop watching shitty awards shows. Thankfully, the masses are starting to take my advice.
But where are we going to get our mandated dose of SJW goodness?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the consumers that are the problem. The industry considers an Oscar, or an Oscar nomination, to be a qualification. Actors get more money, directors get more work, and movies get a marketing boost when the next one is from "two time Oscar nominated director" starring "Academy Award nominee".
It's effectiveness is of course debatable - Crap like Mortal Engines can still fall flat on its face despite the big names attached. Actually even Spielberg didn't do so well with Battle Angel.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it's an unwritten rule, but if it is I think a nice compromise would be for both governing bodies to allow a film to be up for one or the other, not both.
Or have the streaming sites have their own awards.
Roma isn't really cinema or TV.
Re: (Score:2)
But why the "Oscars"? We already have the Emmy awards for television.
Because separating the entertainment by display format rather than by type is stupid. Multi hour entertainment should not be judged the same as ongoing short episodic entertainment.
You're right, there's a divide between TV and Cinema, and if you think Netflix movies should be at the Emmys rather than at the Oscars then you have visualised that divide in a completely bizarre way.
Or maybe the Oscars should instead of having "best actor" have "best popcorn served" since you're clearly not judging it by what's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Going to the cinema takes more effort and realistically most of the content that has come out over the last decade is not worth that extra effort. Streaming Netflix, well, I also computer game, or as is the moment right now, slashdot or browse the web at the same time because the content is simply not good enough to watch on it's own. When watching on it's own, fast forward on netflix is used ie the STD startrek took a little over three hours to watch the entire season, fast forward was used a lot, especial
Re:Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:5, Informative)
You're obviously not aware that Roma (and others) [deadline.com] had a theatrical release before they started streaming it. So, Spielberg's sour grapes amounts to, uh, sour grapes.
Re:Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:5, Informative)
Roma (and the others) had an artificially limited theatrical release in order to make it eligible for the Oscars, to generate interesting on the festival circuit, and to satisfy the desires of the director for a "real" screening.
Here in Denmark, Roma could easily have carried a multi-theatre multi-week theatrical release... instead it was screened exactly once for a festival spot (a screening which sold out a month in advance). What's keeping these movies out of theaters is not a lack of interest among theatergoers, but a decision by Netflix to shore up their content monopoly.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm all for keeping walled gardens out of the Oscars. This is has nothing to do with venue, but universal access to venue. Does the Netflix content ever come to DVD? Surprisingly to some, many people still watch movies (at home) the old-fashioned way.
If we were about to split up the Oscars, my first choice for a dividing line would be franchise films on one s
Re:Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all for keeping walled gardens out of the Oscars.
If the Oscars are supposed to be about recognizing the best work in a field, why should it matter where it is shown? Is a work of art any less valid because it is performed for a select audience?
Re: (Score:2)
Some consider "where it was shown" to be a property of "the field." And that is, in fact, how the rules for Oscar eligibility work now, and why Roma had a very limited theatrical release, specially to make it eligible.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for keeping walled gardens out of the Oscars. This is has nothing to do with venue, but universal access to venue.
The really cool people don't have TV's at all, you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:3)
It was in a cinema, but for a limited time, and several academy members were a bit annoyed at how short this was. Ie, it felt like a technicality to them. In addition, there were several other things that academy members complained about. I don't have all the rules so I'm not sure how many of them were skirted here or if these were just sour grapes (ie, one complaint was the large amount of money spent on promoting the movie to the academy).
I don't think Spielberg's complaints are "sour grapes". There is
Re:Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When has anybody who isn't obviously a shill ever claimed otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
Although, I guess you could say call them shills, but that would be begging the question.
Re: (Score:2)
They're pretty much the definition of shills.
Re: Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because made-for-TV movies have been around for a long time and had been mostly crap for a long time. So it's far less work to not even evaluate these as entries. Now, though, there are major films outside the traditional distribution system. HBO has had their share of self-produced movies too - Netflix is not the first - but enough had changed that it's only now that this conversation is due.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix only got here because it put a movie into the cinema. HBO could have done this but didn't. Having a "movie" is not enough to be considered for an Oscar, there are various rules to follow.
Now my point is more about whether the same movie should be eligible for both an Oscar and an Emmy.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the same movie should be eligible for both - but which one it falls under might be more complex than whether it's Netflix or broadcast TV.
The rules were originally there to keep out low-quality TV movies. The rules then started shifting to intentionally block all sorts of things.
Re: (Score:2)
The rules were originally there to keep out low-quality TV movies.
Don't low quality movies remove themselves from competition simply by being low quality?
Re: (Score:2)
"Self Produced" is a misnomer because while many 'broadcasters' do have production departments, few shows are produced fully 'in house'. Scripts are purchased, production companies get contracts and complete movies/series are often sold into distribution. Before becoming the cheesy 'movie of the week', it may have started out as someone's grand idea only to lack the money or attention, if production went well some of them could have ended up with real box office draw. The fact that 'made-for-tv' were ex
Re:Gen X vs Millennials again (Score:4, Insightful)
Because made-for-TV movies have been around for a long time and had been mostly crap for a long time.
If they're crap, no one would be worried about them "unfairly" winning Oscars. What am I missing here?
Re: (Score:2)
That they review (watch) eligible submissions. They don't want to watch movies that they've already decided should be crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen some of the rubbish that wins Oscars? Not exactly a high bar so far as content is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen some of the rubbish that wins Oscars? Not exactly a high bar so far as content is concerned.
I saw a few of this year's winners (Bohemian Rhapsody, Green Book, Black Panther) and didn't think they were rubbish, though I thought Black Panther was an odd nominee, as comic book superhero movies usually don't get much consideration). Which ones did you consider rubbish?
Re: (Score:2)
*some*
I do concede that this years nominees and winners were pretty good. Whether they deserved the awards they actually got I have no idea.
Re: (Score:1)
It is unfair though that the same movie can be up for an Oscar and an Emmy. If Netflix wants an Oscar then they need to show the film in a cinema.
lol, nobody actually cares but people who live in Hollywood. The awards are all bought beforehand anyway, it's just a dated marketing tool.
Re: (Score:2)
It is unfair though that the same movie can be up for an Oscar and an Emmy. If Netflix wants an Oscar then they need to show the film in a cinema.
Differential analysis - fear of competition.
If the demand is that theaters or GTFO of our turf, it will merely continue Hollywood's problems. It's been so long since my family has gone to a movie - and I find myself watching more and more streaming only.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's on the board of governors. He doesn't have to lobby, he's one of 51 people who makes the rules. He's warning everyone that this may be the last year Netflix/Amazon can do this, because he might be about to change the rules (along with 25 of his friends.)
Netflix DOES release in cinemas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was an awesome movie! It was only nominated for somewhat minor categories though (song, costume, adapted screenplay).
Re: (Score:2)
This has more to do with what a single awards show and its criteria for entry than stopping anyone from making money. Game of Thrones is winning plenty of awards and making HBO plenty of money even though it can never win an Academy Award. This will not be decided by what is fair, it will be decided by what the Academy Awards needs to do to stay relevant. With record low ratings the Oscars cannot just cling to current rules and hope to keep the attention of future (and current younger) generations.
Re: (Score:2)
Relevant?
Anybody ever watch any award shows? Anybody even know someone that has watched an award show?
Hollywood is just an episode of 'Jerry Springer'. The 'stars' are just 'I fucked my sister' type sideshow geeks. Ship has sailed.
Re: (Score:2)
33 million people watched. Viewership is down significantly, but that's still a lot of eyeballs. Maybe you're a little out of touch with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the TV rating system is horribly broken and telling them what they want to hear. Do you also believe Facebook's ad impression numbers?
I don't believe for a second that about 1 in 10 americans watch the Oscars. That would be among the most watched network TV shows in the year. How did they even count the 'fall asleep' factor?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe for a second that about 1 in 10 americans watch the Oscars
Who said anything about 1 in 10 Americans? The show is broadcast internationally. I guess you really are out of touch.
Re: (Score:2)
What century are you living in?
Everything is shot on HD video and even shithole nations have their own movies. Hollywood isn't nearly as relevant, worldwide as it was in 1960. The international audience for American awards shows is tiny.
What does get exported and dubbed, is mostly 'blowed up real good' CGI fests.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the neighborhood ladies (soap watching housewife) watched them when I was a kid. Nobody I've known since.
How bored would someone have to be to watch such crap. Or to care, at all, about the lives of such a bunch of self absorbed morons.
Re: (Score:1)
What a great night 2016 election night was. Because we knew all you morons were bleating.
It's going to be a rough six years for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Because TV isn't what it was when those rules were made. I have a better A/V setup at home than most theater-goers will experience down at the local mall 16-plex, and it didn't even cost that much.
It is patently unfair to hold Netflix and Amazon to standards set for the Hallmark Channel or Lifetime or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sore Loser (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, this whole thing is about protecting territory. With falling ticket revenues these big producers need to think about story quality rather than raping Indiana Jones.
Re: (Score:2)
My screen is as big (view wise) than a theater (Score:3)
In a lot of movie theaters today, aren't the screens rather small? I use a projector and I tend to think the field of view for the movies I watch is not really that much different than movies theaters I've been in (apart from IMAX of course). With so many very large screen TV's around these days it seems like this would be true of a lot of people.
I would say without hesitation the audio is WAY better than most movie theaters as I can hear it instead of a muddy mess.
And of course, it doesn't have other people distracting you while watching...
If you really value the cinematic experience, value the home theater for that is where people are truly WATCHING movies as opposed to just killing time.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's trying to ban home viewing. The controversy is about Netflix refusing to screen their films in theaters (even when there's a clear market demand), instead locking them up in their walled garden of a subscription service.
That is not the controversy (Score:2)
The controversy is about Netflix refusing to screen their films in theaters
But that is not even true, as they did put Roma in a small number of theaters.
The story is about Speilburg saying Netflix doesn't belong even if they do that, because they offer only a TV experience.
What I am saying, is that at this point for a lot of people from a quality standpoint, TV viewing and theater viewing now kind of overlap in terms of quality. Depending on your weighting of importance for aspects of viewing (like distra
Re: (Score:2)
The movie theater I go to for most of my movies (because its the cheapest in town) has a 25 meter screen with top of the line Barco Laser Projection. Good luck getting THAT in a home theater unless you are super-rich.
Re: (Score:2)
The movie theater I go to for most of my movies (because its the cheapest in town) has a 25 meter screen
Yes but how far away do you sit from it?
The projection system is for sure better than a home projector or really large TV... but then again you are much farther from the screen.
Same here (Score:2)
bought a refurb Epson Cinema 720 for $350, ordered a 120" diagonal screen and at 12 feet away it really feels way more movie theater wise than a large screen tv.
Exactly (Score:2)
I don't even have a a 4K projector myself either (someday), but project it pretty large and it looks really good.
The lines are a little blurry (Score:1)
Aren't the Emmy's for 1/2 or 1 hour TV shows with multiple episodes? That's a little different than a movie. I don't pay attention to any of the award shows, but I'd guess that the Emmy award also has a category for made for TV movies. But traditionally, those have been much lower budget than what a Netflix movie can be.
Then there's the reality that a 28 inch 4:3 CRT isn't on the high end of TV sizes any longer. At a 7 foot viewing distance you can get a 70 inch TV that will take up 40 degrees of your FOV,
Re: The lines are a little blurry (Score:1)
I want to see Spielburg surrender all awards he has gotten for films that subsequently were released for home viewing. They were sullied by being available outside the theatre and he should surrender all awards.
Spielberg is Right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have a lot of quantity, but they're basically a major studio in their own right with flops and runaway successes. Some of these have huge effects budgets, 5.1 surround, and 4K picture quality.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be surprised if any Netflix movies were even nominated
...
Surprise! [wikipedia.org] (...?)
This could end up marginalizing the Oscars (Score:3)
Netflix dropped out of Cannes (Score:2)
Netflix doesn't compete at Cannes anymore [slashdot.org] because Cannes requires films to follow France's release window law, which requires a delay of 36 months between premiere in theaters and premiere on all-you-can-eat VOD.
Will there be Program access rules for online vide (Score:2)
Will there be Program access rules for online video???
Or will comcast be able to move there RSN's to Comcast internet only?
TV & Cinema Distinction Becoming Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
The plebeians won't care, having little investment in the outcome as their hardware capabilities provide them more and better options for data consumption and the media giants become more brazen in their attempts to capture consumers and lock out competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the convergence of video and film production and the ubiquity of digital distribution the distinction between "Television" and "Cinema" is becoming harder to define.
It's like the music industry fighting the internet all over again. With likely the same result.
Well, send them to the Emmys (Score:2)
If you live in a time when TV was always second behind TV.
Actors would take roles in TV series only if they were desperate or already gave up the chance of an actual celebrity acting career.
Enter HBO and Netflix showing that TV does not have to be cheap and low quality. Their series are clever, funny, fresh and deep while old-school cinema is presenting us with nothing than the 15th superhero remake. Or 80s remake. (star Trek, Ghostbusters anyone?)
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in a time when TV was always second behind TV.
Actors would take roles in TV series only if they were desperate or already gave up the chance of an actual celebrity acting career.
Enter HBO and Netflix showing that TV does not have to be cheap and low quality.
For your approval - Game of Thrones. Even if you don't like it (and I'm not all that wild about it) It looks and reads a lot better than the hollywood dreck coming out these days.
while old-school cinema is presenting us with nothing than the 15th superhero remake. Or 80s remake. (star Trek, Ghostbusters anyone?)
Funny - I was going to compare GOT and the abysmal Ghostbusters 2016 in another post. But as I've said before, since I've seen averything they put out before, I don't need to see them again.
Re: (Score:2)
But Netflix is generally cheap and low quality. But unlike the traditional TV medium its not constrained by cancer such as force commercial breaks in the script structure, and has to be made in a manner where its possible to keep on watching
What makes Netflix good for TV is that instead of a plot point before and after each commercial break, you get shows where this is uneven. Episodes can conclude without anything even happening, or the episodes can be filled with content.
TV is also filled with horrors suc
No films qualify for the Oscars then (Score:5, Interesting)
Theater ticket sales in 2017 [mpaa.org] were $11.1 billion for the U.S. + Canada, $40.6 billion worldwide.
2017 sales of the same movies on disc and digital format were $20.5 billion for the U.S., $47.8 billion worldwide. Compounding this is the fact that disc and digital movies are cheaper per viewer. So each dollar spent on disc and digital formats represents more viewers than a dollar spent at the theater.
People view theatrical release movies predominantly in the home, not in theaters. It's been this way since the 1980s [wordpress.com] when movie rentals on videotape became a thing. If you honestly make "viewed in theaters" vs "viewed at home" the distinguishing factor, then no film (except those intentionally withheld from disc and digital distribution) qualifies for the Oscars.
DVD screeners (Score:1)
Don't all the voters get DVD screeners so they can view the movie? I don't think they are going to the theater to watch them all.
Can't compete (Score:2)
Wow, I hadn't realized how inconsequential Spielberg had become. He's given up on competing, apparently...
Re: Can't compete (Score:2)
Ready Player One makes me think he's trying to recapture his glory years from the 80s.
Chiding streaming for all the wrong reasons (Score:2)
And for everyone who can invest like 4000 bucks into home cinema equipment, the display and audio quality is on
Seems to me (Score:2)
Every time the major studios try to exclude NF from anything, NF just turns around and does it better in-house. Hollywood really needs a good ass-kicking anyway, and it could be a good way to get out in front before Disney does the same.
Oscars are for political grandstanding now... (Score:3)
What does he think about theaters that use TV? (Score:1)
Kinda weird coming from Spielberg... (Score:3)
The fact is that, considering the size of modern TVs and quality of modern home audio, most of us have setups at home that are just as, if not more (When you factor in the overpriced tickets and food; and the awfulness of the crowd that only the Alamo Drafthouse bothers to do anything about.), enjoyable than the theater for most movies.
SOME movies do command a theater showing. But many donâ(TM)t. Picking on a few WW2 flicks, for example: The Darkest Hour and The Imitation Game were fantastic. But I see no compelling reason why I should have gone to see them on the big screen. And indeed I did not. Dunkirk and Saving Private Ryan, OTOH, absolutely did and DO command theater attendance.
The weirdness here is that much of Spielbergâ(TM)s work does fall into the category of âoeMust see it in the theater.â If, for example, he were to re-release the Indiana Jones Trilogy into the theater, I absolutely would buy tickets and see it on the big screen. Something still good, but much less spectacular, like The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind... not so much.
Who Cares? (Score:2)
simple (Score:2)
is it stated somewhere in the oscar rules that a movie must have had a theatrical release?
what are the actual rules for a movie to be allowed? if netflix movies tick all those boxes, include them.
if you don't agree with that, well, then you must revise your oscar rules, so that it becomes clear and there is no confusion who can compete and who can't.
unless they do that, excluding netflix is unfair.
What is the medium? (Score:2)
So what is the difference between the Emmies and the Oscars, really? Well there are historical and business reasons why they're separate, but Spielberg's argument is one of principle: the theatrical expe
Re: (Score:2)
Spielberg's argument is one of principle: the theatrical experience is different from the home experience, and the awards should be delineated by that difference. In other words, Spielberg is saying that the theater is a part of the medium for Oscar-eligible films.
Not all theaters are created equal. Some are very good, while others are mediocre. Based on that fact, some home experiences are going to be better than some theater experiences. So to me, having to be in a theater to get an award is a bit lame.
I'd also argue that if the film was shown in any substandard theaters, it should not be eligible for an award, since the theater is "part of the medium".
Improve the nominations (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the Matrix.
We started watching this last night with the kids and man it is incredible (first Rated-R movie for them). The kids take ju-jitsu so they enjoyed the training scene (one of my favorites as well).
That movie works on so many levels (and there were no sequels, those are just rumors from a prior version of reality).
Re: (Score:2)
(I liked the third movie...)
Netflix Cinemas? (Score:2)
This may lead to Netflix buying/building its own cinemas just to show movies in.
Death to the Megaplex (Score:2)
Mike Stoklasa of Red Letter Media said it best, to paraphrase: I can't wait for the megaplexes to die. I agree totally.
For decades, the moviegoing experience has gotten worse and worse, with the exception of Alamo Drafthouse. There are no other brick and mortar movie theaters I can stand to go to. In most of them, you have to listen to mouth-breathing, nose-picking yahoos who have to explain the movie to their even dumber friends in real time. Given that the entirety of the the modern marketplace is based o
Well... (Score:2)
fuck Spielberg, make better movies again Captain Dinosaur, otherwise, get out of the way....