Netflix, Which Spent $100M in Oscars Campaign Alone, Won Just 2 Awards. 'Parasite', a South Korean Movie That Cost $11M To Make, Won 4 (latimes.com) 85
An anonymous reader shares a report: Around Thanksgiving, it looked like this could have been Netflix's year to win it all at the Oscars. Critics were heaping praise on the epic scale of Martin Scorsese's mob movie "The Irishman," which felt destined to be the streaming giant's best shot at the elusive best picture trophy. The Los Gatos-based tech company put its weight behind the $159-million film, with its big stars and intricate age-altering effects, and pushed it hard through awards season with billboards along Sunset Boulevard. And yet, on Sunday at the Dolby Theatre, Netflix came up short. In total, Netflix's movies had 24 Oscar nominations, the most of any studio. [...]
Still, Netflix ended up winning just two awards, including supporting actress for Laura Dern's turn as a divorce lawyer in "Marriage Story." Netflix also won for documentary feature "American Factory," which was supported by Barack and Michelle Obama's Higher Ground Productions. It wasn't for lack of trying. Hollywood executives estimate that Netflix spent at least $70 million (WSJ pegs $100 million) to promote its eight awards contenders to academy voters. For most studios, an awards season budget of $15 million is considered an ample war chest for a best-picture contender. Netflix was hoping to succeed this year where it ultimately failed in 2019 in its quest to take home the big prize for Alfonso Cuaron's "Roma." Instead, best picture went to "Parasite," Bong Joon Ho's South Korean satirical thriller, which was released by the scrappy upstart New York distributor Neon and cost about $11 to make. "Parasite" also won for director, original screenplay and international film and became the first foreign-language film to win the academy's top honor.
Still, Netflix ended up winning just two awards, including supporting actress for Laura Dern's turn as a divorce lawyer in "Marriage Story." Netflix also won for documentary feature "American Factory," which was supported by Barack and Michelle Obama's Higher Ground Productions. It wasn't for lack of trying. Hollywood executives estimate that Netflix spent at least $70 million (WSJ pegs $100 million) to promote its eight awards contenders to academy voters. For most studios, an awards season budget of $15 million is considered an ample war chest for a best-picture contender. Netflix was hoping to succeed this year where it ultimately failed in 2019 in its quest to take home the big prize for Alfonso Cuaron's "Roma." Instead, best picture went to "Parasite," Bong Joon Ho's South Korean satirical thriller, which was released by the scrappy upstart New York distributor Neon and cost about $11 to make. "Parasite" also won for director, original screenplay and international film and became the first foreign-language film to win the academy's top honor.
Wow that was a cheap movie (Score:4, Funny)
Bong Joon Ho's South Korean satirical thriller, which was released by the scrappy upstart New York distributor Neon and cost about $11 to make.
Imagine what they could have done with a Benjamin!
Re: (Score:3)
Bong Joon Ho's South Korean satirical thriller, which was released by the scrappy upstart New York distributor Neon and cost about $11 to make.
Imagine what they could have done with a Benjamin!
I would have expected a conversion rate like that in North Korea, not South Korea.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes it shows that creativity is forced by the shortage of money. Too much money can actually make things worse rather than better when it comes to movie making.
When you have a limited budget you have to think more than once about how to tie together what you have. With too much money it's too easy to say "we fix it in the cut" or "we just add voiceovers".
Woosh (Score:1)
$11 != $11M.
Why do we say "eleven milion dollars", but write "dollars ten-one million" anyway?
Is it like "Give me of dem dollars ten and one, of dem millions, my son!"?
Re:Wow that was a cheap movie (Score:5, Informative)
More money also means more involvement from a studio or some committee of producers that all want to piss in the soup a little bit because they feel like it will improve the taste. If your film only costs $3 million, the suits are fine if the director fucks off and makes some art that might not appeal to most people. When it costs $300 million, they start inserting themselves and this naturally compromises any vision that a director may have had. Design by committee isn't likely to produce better in film than it would in any other domain.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one reason I respect Robert Rodrigues as a film maker. He doesn't want too much money, it would take the edge off his creativity.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"For $100 million dollars, I could make a totally separate campaign called "NetFlixOscars" and hire my own celebrities to make it seem legit. Holly crap that's a lot of money."
For that money you could buy 2 tons of pure gold Oscars.
Re: (Score:2)
For that money you could buy about 80 times as many statues as have been awarded throughout the 92 years of ceremonies.
Re: (Score:3)
Bong Joon Ho's South Korean satirical thriller, which was released by the scrappy upstart New York distributor Neon and cost about $11 to make.
They had to shoot it with an Android phone, rather than an iOS device.
Irishman was for old people (Score:5, Insightful)
and it was too long and the CGI was flaky and unbelievable. it was a great way to pay homage to the old time mafia movies, but not near good enough as Casino or The Godfather or even The Sopranos.
Re: Irishman was for old people (Score:2)
That list misses Goodfellas, no?
Re: (Score:2)
I think t was meant to be a few examples, not an all inclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
"and it was too long and the CGI was flaky and unbelievable. it was a great way to pay homage to the old time mafia movies, but not near good enough as Casino or The Godfather or even The Sopranos."
I stopped watching before half-time.
It was just too cheesy. If at least it would have had a good title song.
"Ain't no sunshine when cheese gone"
Re: (Score:3)
Being long and "boring" was kinda its point. It's a long-winded lie of a bad liar. Not "paying homage".
Scorsese shows these guys for what they are.
Petty thieves and liars with delusions of grandeur, incompetent to hold down an honest job so they do crime, incompetent at that too so they end up murdering each other in the street, dying in prison - or dying irrelevant and old, making up bullshit stories about how once they ruled the world.
That's why De Niro's Frank Sheeran keeps coming off as Forrest Gump.
He'
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's what Scorsese tells himself- but let's not fool ourselves and say his movies don't glorify the mafia. Many, many people would be happy to make the trade of living like a prince for the prime years of their lives and then having to pay the piper at some point. Not to mention the many video games that ape these movies directly and let you live out the fantasy yourself.
I thought the Irishman completely missed in its attempt to "show the consequences". The last half hour of the movie is the protago
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My wife and I are halfway through it, and I'm enjoying it for the most part. I think the CGI DeNiro is amazing, but Joe Pesci and Al Pacino reside well in within the uncanny valley. Narratively it's also an odd choice, because why not set the whole thing in the 60s/70s with younger actors, rather then do it all as flashback and CGI with 80 year olds
You should watch it to the end then, it's very important to the narrative that it's all taking places over the decades.
That said yeah some of the CG de-ageing was a bit wonky and IMO he could've just used young actors to play at least the earliest scenes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw some of it, I remember a scene where DeNiro kicks a younger guy to the curb for some thing with his daughter I think. DeNiro's body (with young CGI face) is all stiff and awkward - it looks like satire or stop-motion.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyways I really enjoyed watching this gang saddle up one last time. I agree about the flaws this created in the scenes of them as younger men, but seeing them wind up decrepit was really the point after all.
Also when I saw Pacino in a red carpet interview last nigh
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It feels cruel to say this, but watching the Irishman was like spending a long afternoon in a nursing home-- it's initially sort of interesting, but after an hour or so, I just wanted to go outside for some fresh air. It's a movie made by old men, about old men. Even when they are maximally "de-aged", the actors look like they're about 60. It's also remarkable in the sense that there are no women at all, and it seems to take place in a universe where sex does not exist.
The characters in "Goodfellas" and
Blair Witch Project (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's 8454.55 times as much as the budget for Parasite, at least according to Slashdot's summary.
I'm just sad... (Score:2)
...that Klaus didn't get an Oscar.
Other people's money (Score:2)
Netflix's bosses are just burning their "investors'" money; what do they care?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Wait, what? (Score:2)
Since when does quality determine the success of a movie? When did we get so anti-capitalist that it ain't the amount of money you throw behind it anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, it doesn't. The last Star Wars dreck made over $1,000,000,000 gross. Super Hero movies are making billions. Parasite made $160,000,000 gross. Marketing wins. Another data point: you (and everyone else here) saw Star Wars and didn't see Parasite.
Re: (Score:2)
Please talk for yourself, I didn't pay for Star Wars...
Re: (Score:2)
Talk for yourself, I didn't even see the latest Star Wars... In fact I don't even know the title.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooooh edgy.
I didn't to see Rise of Skywalker because after seeing three disappointing prequels and a disappointing sequel in the form of The Force Awakens, I had no interest in seeing The Last Jedi or anything thereafter. Reinforced by seeing what Abrams did to Star Trek, I felt no need to subject myself to more of his work.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh.. you were lucky.
Watching TLJ ruins the original trilogy if you accept it as canon and it's hard to unsee something.
I skipped e9 where I hear that palpatine basically eradicates the skywalker family and his descendent takes their names.
Re: (Score:2)
That sequel trilogy feels a lot like two little boys trashing each other's toys because they think the other one plays wrong with them, and a helicopter mom buying them replacements.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I keep reading about "the new Star Wars movie".
I watched it though. (Score:2)
All three movies.
Sad they never made movies out of the first three.
Then again, they were written by a pubescent Lucas, and so it's probably for the better.
Wouldn't want to see Snow White, Peter Pan and Jar Jar Goofy ruining the Star Wars universe.
Re: (Score:2)
>Another data point: you (and everyone else here) saw Star Wars and didn't see Parasite.
Not seen Star Wars... I have a vendetta against Disney - but I get your point.
When the wife an' I were doing the 'well, who wins?' predictions during the break, my answer was : Whichever of those movies I've never heard of and haven't seen...
I've seen Irishman ( her bailiwick not mine), and Ford vs Ferrari - again, hers.. and Little Women. hers.. Jeez, come to think of it - all the movies we've seen lately are 'hers'.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's honestly not even a great movie -- it's just a mediocre dark comedy/thriller -- but it seems to have an aura of exoticism for being foreign. People seem to be compensating for their cultural naivety by projecting a level of sophistication on the film that just doesn't exist. It's a silly movie, not a case study in class dynamics on the Korean peninsula.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen the latest Star Wars yet, to be honest I probably will eventually one night when I can't sleep and need something to fall asleep to. Parasite I kind of want to seen now, I don't know if I will but there is a chance. Not since episode 1 have I had any great desire to see it and have waited to they where free to view.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the amount of money you throw at it, it's also who throws the money around.
Netflix will never get an Oscar because their movies won't be shown in cinema and thus aren't profitable to Hollywood. If Netflix spends $100M on a movie, they'll hope to make it back at some point. If Hollywood spends a $100M on a movie, they'll expect at least $1B back through theaters alone and then a continuous return through rentals and then to DVD and then to digital and then to streaming etc etc.
So What (Score:5, Insightful)
Who gives a shit about the Oscars? They're nothing but political awards for people who brown nose the Academy, and have nothing to do with the quality of the work.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they're throwing a shitload of money at them doesn't mean they're... oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is never going to win best picture. You see, the Oscars are about the silver screen. Netflix movies play on a black screen. Not saying the Oscars has anything against the black screen, but the more prominent awards are kind of a sea of silver.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that the Oscars are racists.
Re: (Score:2)
No no, see, they just prefer silver to black, and their judgements are influenced by that irrelevant colour preference.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is never going to win best picture. You see, the Oscars are about the silver screen.
No, the Oscars are all about the silver voters. Typically their granddaughter hasn't stopped by to hook up their Netflix yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Vicious. True though.
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC. Multiple news programmes and multiple stories on their website all worried about the skin colour of the award nominees and recipients.
I've complained to them about their racism but it's endemic and institutional, they don't even recognise it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "the Academy". A bunch of people working at various levels in the industry gets send a bunch of movies, then they put in their vote. There's no real comprehensive guideline how to make judgement for each category. Some don't watch all or any of the movies. Some put in a few votes because their mum had a preference.
Re: (Score:2)
It's what they call themselves, like it or not. Kinda like the preschool my kid when to.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a shit about the Oscars?
Not you. But a lot of people given its one of the worlds most watched and most anticipated awards shows. So there's that. But we can always try and pretend the world around us doesn't exist, you usually find those people who do that at the bottom of the food chain wondering where it is all going wrong and why the world doesn't make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny that you'd jump to that kind of assumption since you know nothing about me or the people who agree.
Yeah, creativity can't be *bought*. (Score:2)
No matter how much money you throw at it. In fact, broad appeal usually means less appealing to the individual.
And Oscars aren't awarded for good movies anyway. But for being the most Oscar-esque.
Re: (Score:2)
"nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded." Or something to that effect from Yogi Berra.
well korean movie industry has sometimes a hit.. (Score:2)
well korean movie industry has a breakaway hit like once in a decade.
Anyway, I guess the point is that.. look, beyond say 10 mil or 20 mil, how much money is going to make it look any better? if you don't have any vision about what you want to do that just spikes up the budget 10x. this is fairly common with the bigger budget disney films now.
would the new star wars have been any worse if it had just half the budget? because some movies are just done to use up all the money. making the movie is where the pe
Wow, a Rigged System bitching... (Score:4, Interesting)
About a rigged system? This is full circle jerk shit right here!
Lets just all accept the fake that the Oscars is just an allegory about humans and their habits of gate keeping every blistering fucking thing we are involved with!
Martin Scorsese is very overrated (Score:2)
I am glad the Irishman did not win. Martin Scorsese is simply a good/capable director whose elevation to some sort of "director deity" and continuous awards completely mystify me. I may be the minority, but I simply don't get it. Yes, I loved Goodfellas, I like several of his films, I didn't like some that others love (Taxi Driver, Shutter Island), but overall if I watch a Scorsese film, I am expecting pretty much one of the same direction-wise, nothing to be really excited about. There was actually a speci
Re: (Score:2)
Naah... You're just in the middle of the curve, still reading only the text of his movies, but no longer seeing "the cool" in them.
For Scorsese, one either adores him by mythologizing the text about criminals - or is amazed at his empathy while showing them as condemned souls.
He literally believes they are all going to a literal hell.
As for The Departed - flaw lies with the original's melodrama.
Scorsese needs honesty and truth to portray his characters as real people.
The Departed failed there cause it was t
Re: (Score:1)
So here is how it works. (Score:2)
I find it interesting, that there seems a lot of demand of something unique.
These budget films are made on the cheap, but are highly praises for being unique.
Once they get popular and make more money, they put more money in its next movie. This money doesn't seem to really help the movie that much, and often brings in the old way of doing things, so they get to the point where their movies are just as humdrum as the old ones.
A lot of this comes from the big studios buying these smaller ones.
But also this h
Re: (Score:3)
There are a zillion budget films made. Every once in a while one of them is really good and gets recognized as such. Same with music: there are a disproportionate number of one hit wonders.
Most success, including in other areas, is a function of being good at what you do, and getting lucky.
Probable answer (Score:2)
Aren't the Oscars voted for by the "Academy" of elitists, rather than by regular folks in the real world?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a bunch of people working at various levels in the industry that get sent a bunch of movies, then they put in their vote. There's no real comprehensive guideline how to make judgement for each category. Some don't watch all or any of the movies. Some put in a few votes because their mum had a preference. They're biased in the way that it's a requirement they work in the industry.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (Score:5, Informative)
... is basically a club for people who work in the movie industry.
*Parasite* winning "Best Picture" doesn't necessarily it's the best picture from an audience's point of view -- in fact that's probably a meaningless concept. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem applies here. It means a plurality of people in that club were impressed with what the filmmakers accomplished on a shoestring.
When someone in the movie business looks at something on screen, how hard that thing was to do is bound to be a bigger part of their response to it. It's obvious to anyone why transforming Christian Bale into Dick Cheney won an Oscar for makeup in 2018, but The Grand Budapest won in 2014 for doing something audiences took for granted: showing the protagonists as young men, middle-aged, and old and doing it credibly.
Not Netflix year at the Oscars? (Score:1)
Netflix's award window may have closed (Score:2)
Netflix had an easier time in award season when it was the only edgy content producer in town and were primarily competing with HBO. Now they're going to have every other streaming service to contend with so we're going to see whether they really are good film makers, or if they had a first mover advantage that has now been negated by big equally well financed fish.
Tom Hanks was robbed (Score:2)
Plain and simple. They nominated him as supporting actor but I'd argue his character was actually the star of the film and his depiction of Mr. Rogers was so convincing, my child's eyes were glued and he may have been a better Mr. Rogers than the real deal.
Why was he robbed? He was a victim of socially accepted racism.
Re: (Score:2)
Plain and simple. They nominated him as supporting actor but I'd argue his character was actually the star of the film ...
But we could have said exactly the same about Brad Pitt's character in the Hollywood film.
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly was a competitive year. Joaquin Phoenix in Joker winning best is questionable. The job of an actor isn't just to convince but also to entertain. His performance hit an uncanny valley depiction of mental illness that was uncomfortable to watch rather than entertaining. It was a performance better suited to an actual biographical film depicting someone with mental illness and not the back story for a fictional character.
so spending doesn't result in Oscars? (Score:2)
/shock.
Movies from 2019: ...how many Oscars did they collect?
Avengers: Endgame $356 million
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker $275 million
The Lion King $250 million
Dark Phoenix $200 million
Hobbs & Shaw $200 million
I've never even HEARD of the last one.
You know who votes for the Oscar winners, right? (Score:2)
There is no similar bias against foreign films.
Re: (Score:2)
But there was one real problem with The Irishman. The same director made exactly the same film 30 years ago. It was called Goodfellas. The whole format and storytelling format were lifted straight out of there. It's a good film, but doesn't deserve film of the year award.
Fact is... hollywood hates netflix (Score:1)
So 2 oscars is basically a miracle.
Netflix is making some entertaining shows and movies.
Meanwhile, the customers they gave a great bargain too are helping drive the cost of the original content to close to $150 per month when Netflix charged us about $12.
All you have to do is subscribe to a dozen other services to see what you used to be able to see on Netflix.
And by subscribing, you just encourage further subdivision and higher cost.
"American Factory," from Higher Ground Productions (Score:3)
Netflix also won [yesterday] for documentary feature "American Factory," which was supported by Barack and Michelle Obama's Higher Ground Productions
Sept 2019: "The Obamas Want 'Higher Ground'; Someone Got There First." This could take years to solve. Five months later -- apparently NOT. [nytimes.com] Another [hollywoodreporter.com]
Hanisya Massey's computer training firm is coming up against the former first couple's similarly named production company. Sorting it out could take years.
[they've know for a year because their application was rejected by the USPTO] "Instead, of simply picking another name, the Obamas' lawyers have now filed a meritless petition to cancel my client's trademark so they can take it for themselves"
Re: (Score:1)
For lack of being the correct type of company (Score:2)