Academy Leaves Door Open To Netflix After Tussle Over Oscars Eligibility Rules (npr.org) 41
The Academy of Motion Picture and Arts and Sciences has ruled that films from streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video will continue to be eligible to win Academy Awards. The Academy had considered changing Rule Two, which allowed any film to be eligible for an Academy Award as long as it had a seven-day run in a Los Angeles theater. From a report: That proposal, reportedly pushed by megadirector Steven Spielberg, would have made it difficult for streaming services such as Netflix to compete for the academy's big prizes by restricting eligibility to just films that got a significant run in theaters. Films that debuted online and only got a limited theatrical release simply would be out of luck. But when the academy's board of governors released its rules for next year's prize -- a book that runs to 35 pages, all told -- the would-be changes were not among them. "We support the theatrical experience as integral to the art of motion pictures, and this weighed heavily in our discussions," John Bailey, president of the academy, said in a statement released Tuesday night. "Our rules currently require theatrical exhibition, and also allow for a broad selection of films to be submitted for Oscars consideration." Further reading: Justice Department Warns Academy About Changing Oscar Rules To Exclude Streaming.
Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do the academy send out screeners to voters if the theater experience are so vital to what the movies are about? How can they judge without watching all the movies in the theater? Does Spielberg (I still love many of your movies) watch all the movies on theaters before casting his vote? Spielberg is known to hate watching movies with other people.
This is nothing but old dinosaurs complaining about changes in the industry.
Re: (Score:1)
So the whole anti-Netflix thing is about wealth and privilege?
Then make better movies (Score:2)
If you want the awards, Spielberg and traditional Hollywood producers, then MAKE BETTER MOVIES. Netflix only wins awards by making great movies [1]. Isn't that what you're supposed to be good at? Why are you so afraid of a little competition?
[1] for values of "great" encompassing artistic fluff and sentimental bullshit. the usual oscar bait.
Nothing but protectionist dinosaurs trying to prop up their archaic revenue models. Here comes the Chicxulub meteor... time to kiss your scaly asses goodbye.
Why does the medium even matter? (Score:2)
Does any consumer actually give a fuck about the Academy Awards NOT being applied to streaming content?
Why does the medium the movie is initially available on even fucking matter in the first place?? Everything ends up on cable, dish, streaming, BluRay and DVD anyways.
Why does it need to have "physical" screen time in order to win some stupid award?
Either:
a) ignore the medium it was initially shown on, OR
b) do what speed runners do: Make a NEW category:
* Medium: Film
* Medium: Streaming
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't. The problem was in the past the medium correlated to the type of show:
Theaters > Full length films.
TV > Short length episodic + the occasional thing that either played in the Theater anyway or wasn't going to win an Oscar anyway (direct to TV movie)
This worked fine despite being ill-defined right until the likes of Netflix showed up. A medium that is consumed in the home, by a company that mostly only produced short length episodic material ... sounds perfect to fob them off to the Emmys.
T
Re: (Score:3)
TV > Short length episodic + the occasional thing that either played in the Theater anyway or wasn't going to win an Oscar anyway (direct to TV movie)
You don't see it much anymore, but for a long long time, the made-for-TV movie was pretty common. The Emmys still have a number of categories for "limited series, movie, or special." This is where this disagreement came from, since for decades it was: Theatrical films -> Academy Awards, TV movies -> Emmys. So where does that leave streaming movies on streaming channels? TV shows on channels like Netflix and Amazon are eligible for Emmy Awards, so what makes a streaming channel movie eligible for Acad
Re: (Score:2)
but for a long long time, the made-for-TV movie was pretty common.
It was common. They were also pretty universally horrible crap. Sometimes the best kind of horrible crap. The infamous: "B grade" movie :-)
I used to love watching this stuff with my dad. Especially in the days of 80s / 90s action heros. Sometimes I wake up at night in a cold sweat screaming one liners :-D
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Having to buy film. Understand how to use film. Knowing the total amount of film that could be used in a day.
Have the skill and ability to create something that would sell.
Have film ready for sale. Distribution of film globally and control over distribution in each nation.
What cinema got to show what movie for how long. Then who got control of VHS, dvd, blu ray sales in any nation.
Thats d
Never gonna change (Score:3)
Most academy-bait is extremely limited run arthouse crap anyway. Which is why that "7 Days In LA" rule exists in the first place. Sounds like the title of a zombie movie... They can't eliminate that rule without eliminating a whole swath of their favorites. Naturally the rule makers will ignore Spielberg.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because movies like Spiderman - Into the Spiderverse, and Bohemian Rhapsody are "limited run arthouse crap" Or the Black Panther which got not one but two awards in the last Oscars, we all know that was low budget shit.
But maybe you're talking about best pictures only.
2019: Green Book: $317m world wide box office
2018: The Shape of Water: $195m world wide box office
2017: Moonlight: Okay now we're getting arty, let's look how that 7 day rule applies: 3 months in the USA, and additional month internationa
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR
"Fuck the fucking fuckers"
Oh really? (Score:3)
Maybe it has something to do with Steven Spielberg now working on projects with Apple.
"theatrical experience" (Score:2)
>"We support the theatrical experience as integral to the art of motion pictures, and this weighed heavily in our discussions,"
HA! Well, I support the "home experience" as one far superior to the "theatrical experience" of a movie. One where I get the same or better relative picture size, picture quality, and usually a far superior surround sound experience. Yet one where I am not subjected to talkers, eaters, coughing, sniffing, rustling, crying babies, audible and visible cell phones, horrible perfu
Theatrical Experience (Score:2)
And do they require the voters to have seen the nominees in a theater? With an audience?
Re: (Score:1)
And do they require the voters to have seen the nominees in a theater? With an audience?
Absolutely not. My brother-in law (a film editor) comes "home" to Houston every Christmas with a pile of screener discs provided by the studios to assist him in his voting.
The main reason it matters... (Score:3)
I think there are better options than just excluding streaming originals, but it's not as regular dumb as it sounds.