Slashdot Mirror
Net Films Not Eligible For Oscar
cje writes: "The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences issued a ruling this week stating that any movie which is screened on the Web before it hits traditional theaters will not be eligible for Academy Awards. In a time when new technologies are blossoming like never before, it seems a bit strange that the Academy is apparently doing whatever they can to lock filmmakers into the status quo."
Movie theaters will still be around in 20 years, and long after. The Internet will be used to distribute movies to the theaters, but it will not kill movie theaters any more than TV did. A 19" monitor and 3-piece speaker system cannot replace a 30-foot screen and Dolby/DTS/etc sound.
Not to make light of the efforts of indie film makers, but let's face it...giving an award to a film that was only distributed in that format as opposed to one that you can actually see is kind of an insult. Film is a visual art form. I think we can all agree that the quality of films distributed over the Internet just doesn't live up to what one might consider art (although we're getting close).
Despite all my obnoxious and presumptious statements, I will agree with those of you who say it's unfair to the movies that actually hit celluloid AFTER having first been released on the Internet. I think at that point it's as eligible as any other film out there.
Hope no one beats me to this...
Wasn't The Matrix "released" on the web (unofficially, of course) before being shown in theatres? You know, the pirate version with no background music!
Perhaps, if we don't like a certain film and want to lock it out of an Oscar, we could get someone working at the studio to "release" it on the 'Net before the official release?
Never mind... I'm trying to be funny...
I think it should not be members of some "academy" group who vote on and determine winners.
It should be done by independent (ie. not working for a newspaper also owned by the parent company of the studio) film critics, and perhaps professors of film and literature at major universities.
Having an award judged by a member of the industry is an obvious conflict of interest. Same with the so-called "People's choice" awards, which really equates to "best promoted".
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
Personally I just rented Run, Lola, Run (Lola Rannt), on DVD, and I would have been VERY disappointed had I watched in on VHS, in the dubbed-english version. I watched 5 minutes, and the voice actors so bad, it was MORE painful than watching the english-dubbed version of Akira. I switched it to German and turned on subtitles.
.
THAT is why DVD rocks.
And it especially rocks on my Apex. .
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It's like any other marketing, uh... awards show. Who ever sells the most shit wins. Ergo if you distribute on the Web you can't earn back that $100 million production cost.
This should be no surprise. My reading of the US Academy Awards is that they've always been a combination of an award for peer-recognition and a bow to the grand tradition that is "cinema."
The history of cinema, of course, is one of innovation, so, yeah it is a bit surprising (okay, I'll admit) that they don't recognize innovation.
But as usual there are a lot of politics here -- and probably Jack Valenti is involved somehow, too ("I can't recall that. No, sir. I can't recall. I can't seem to recall. Nope, don't know. Can't recall. I'm sorry, I can't recall.").
Major Studio A will now hire goons to go steal previews of movies made by its competitor Major Studio B and release it on the internet before it is released in the theatres.
Now Major Studio B will be disqualified from getting any awards for that movie!
Isn't that silly? (I wonder if they have a clause about this type of situation)
---
We all know that the big reason for Blair Witch's success in the theater is due to the movie being available on the net for months prior to the release...
Just a thought.
Ah, what they heck. I think I'll flame the MPAA some more just on general principle.
There are many films which were first shown on other media before theatrical releases. Das Boot is a good example, but there are many more.
to me. What if the film is "leaked" to the 'net before it's shown in theaters? Would this disqualify it? Could this be the Academy's way of strong-arming filmmakers into protecting their works from piracy? I wonder what hand the MPAA had in this?
My $.02
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
I think you have to make a distinction here between the medium and the type of content that's on the medium.
Personally, I think a "movie" qualifies as a type of content, not a medium. And the ruling was clearly in regards to the film-on-a-reel medium.
So, the question becomes, what are they granting awards for? Movies? Or things on a reel of film? I think it would make a great deal more sense for them to be granting awards for movies.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but the rule is that movies must be distributed on film first to be eligible for Oscars. You could release your film theatrically, and then put it on the internet the next day, and you'd be fine.
If you're an indie director hoping to use the Internet to test screen your film, that order is a little bass-ackward.
I think you're underestimating how professional "independent" filmmakers are. We're not talking about some kid with a Handicam. I don't know this for certain, but I'm pretty sure that they could just fill the requirement by renting out a local theater for the night and holding a screening.
Of course we're not talking about kids with Handicams. But the most effective test screenings usually consist of many audiences in many parts of the country. The more eyes, the better. The big studios can handle this simply by roping up X number of screens in theaters in major markets all over the nation. Indie directors obviously cannot do this. They may have a budget of twenty or thirty thousand dollars, where every last cent must be spent judiciously. Sure, a night at some local second-run theater might be arranged, but that doesn't come anywhere near the amount of audience exposure a typical director or producer wants in a test screening.
I think the ruling is intended to do exactly what it says: ensure that the Academy Awards for film continue to be awards for film.
If the movie is put on film and released theatrically on film, then why should the fact that it happened to be screened pre-release on the Internet have anything to do with its elibility for an Oscar? If the ruling was about movies that were released exclusively on the Internet and were never printed to film and shown in theaters, I don't think that anybody would have a problem with it.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
If Titan AE were to ever get any awards (and from the looks of it...not really) or Dinosaur, would or could someone ever raise this point?
> IMHO, this ruling is intended to stifle independent films. The Academy has a lot of relationships with a lot of the big studios, and there is no disputing the fact that in recent years, many indie films have been a hell of a lot better than the crap that the major studios have been trowling out.
A show on PBS a while back said that the Hollywood film industry got started because Edison was too tyrannical over the New York movie industry, so some of the film makers made a Mormon-style exodus westward to find a new home where they could do their own thing.
I hope we're seeing the start of Round Two of this right now. Hollywood is increasingly turning out crap (IMHO), and the MPAA is hyper-paranoid about the internet. Meanwhile, the internet gives indies and experimentalists a way to rout around the fat cats that control the valves of the traditional distribution channels.
Kinda like the music situation, eh?
\methinks we'll have internet films enough in coming years... and maybe some better films to boot.
As for the Academy... well, they thought Titanic was wonderful. Need I say more?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The "Academy" was created by the studios for the purpose of self-promotion. (This isn't flaming, this is fact, read any book on film history.)
Ofcourse the studios see web distribution as a threat, they are distribution companies. You might say "well they shoudl be far sighted enough to figure out a way to work in this new world" but thats a pretty rare quality in entrenched power-structures.
A 19" monitor and 3-piece speaker system cannot replace a 30-foot screen and Dolby/DTS/etc sound.
10,000 dpi wallpaper sure would, though. I'm pretty sure i'll have this in my home within the next 20 years. At least something comparable like nice comforatable direct-to-retina laser goggles. Other upcoming technologies include full motion holography, a plethora of cheap and very high resolution projectors, modular LCD screens, yeah yeah yeah.
in related news, my current pet 'fantastic project' is to design a movie screen 10,000+ square miles in area, floating gently in geosynchronos orbit. It will consist of laser lit (rear projection?) LEDs grown onto carbon fibre cloth. It will play nothing but pirated movies, tv shows and commercials from AOL and Nike (to pay for it).
:)Fudboy
:)Fudboy
I guess I'm only a Fudboy, looking for that real Transmeta
Just because they aren't eligible doesn't make it right. This is a violation of my 25th amendment rights! We don't live in the Communist States of America! I demand restitution! How many times will Danielle Steele's works be passed over for best screenplay before the Academy pulls its collective head out of its ass? I hope the Academy will seriously reconsider their blatant acts of censorship.
This is hardly surprising, after all, most different mediums each have their own awards.
Movies have the Oscars.
Television has the Emmys.
I think what we need to do is get started on putting together the Awards for internet released film. Since 'Webbies' is already taken, I propose that we honor the creator of the internet and name the Gores (as in, "Have you heard that 'Shining Blue Diode' run Best Picture at the Gores?"). I figure this could also double as a jab at the Oscar's once net movies take off (as is "Hey, did you see the way 'Shining Blue Diode' Gored the box office ticket sales this weekend?").
Just a thought
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
How will the academy split hairs when digital distribution of films is the norm?
They won't care as long as you pay into their system. Its all about control.
Here are the first three defintions of film I encountered in an online dictionary:
1. movie
2. CINEMA motion pictures collectively: movies collectively, considered as a medium for recording events, a form of entertainment, or an art form
3. PHOTOGRAPHY coated strip for taking pictures: a thin translucent strip or sheet of cellulose coated with an emulsion sensitive to light, used in a camera to take still or moving pictures
I think the poing here is that something can be shot on celluloid (the best graphic technology there is) and produced in a Hollywood studio (the best studios there are), but if it's released on TV or atomfilms.com, the Oscars won't honor it.
What's being protected here is the distributor's revenue, distributors are as much a part of Hollywood as Barnes and Nobles/Borders is a part of Publishing--they dictate it.
*Warning - I am accepting all flame mail* =D In the article it said "filmmakers" I think there is a clear distinction between mediums that hasn't been discussed (although I read none of the other comments - just shoot the shit). Video, DV, Film, CG, these are all very different. Filmmaker, to me, involves celluloid negatives that run at 24 frames per second, and are projected (in an analog fashion) on a screen. You see there is a huge difference, both in construction, conception, and in experiencing a 24 fps film, vs the other "cost effective" (which is in itself a total myth) methods of moving picture reproduction. I neither like nor care about the Oscars or the American blah blah film blah society. There have been some great Big Budget Films, and there have been some horrible Bigeer Budget Movies (another distinction which I will rant about some other time). The Oscars is the night Hollywood (the social club not the geographical location) gets to celebrate being Hollywood. lol. Think about it. Those were my two cents, Cheers, Petros
-Yoink!
Titan AE was kind of refreshing, actually. I went into it expecting to see all the typical annoying Don Bluth-isms. Actually, most of them were still there, but in a less-annoying intensity. I'm thinking perhaps in 50 more years, Don Bluth will produce a movie that doesn't make me want to rech.
Now- one thing that really is starting to piss me off, is ever since Star Wars, the laws of physics have really been tossed out the window -with regard to how fast ships travel in space, how they maneuver, how much sound they make in a vacuum when they wizz by. Now, presumably, a lot of Sci Fi movies don't want to spend the kind of money Ron Howard spent on Apollo 13 to get realistic zero gravity effects. That's understandable. But why in God's name can't animators make some effort to be at least a little bit technically accurate?
Damn I miss B5.
But even B5 sinned in ways that have long since become cliche in Science Fiction. Bad aliens. Aliens which are really people in lots of makup, with funny hair, or the typical Star Trec cliche, something funny on their forehead. oops! new alien race, gotta come up with a new shape for the latex thingie we stick on their forehead!
Some imagination people!
Please!
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Rent out a theater for one night. Bring your computer and an LCD projector. Screen the movie, a single showing. Give away free tickets (if you want a crowd) or just invite your friends. Then go back home and start broadcasting it over the internet.
This pretty much circumvents the restrictions. There is a theatrical screening; it is not an internet transmission. Done.
Of course, I'd be interested in knowing if any of this matters if your film doesn't get the blessing of the MPAA -- you know, that nice little box down at the bottom of the ads (if you ever make any) that says that the MPAA has rated your movie G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17. Are unrated films eligible for Academy Awards anyway?
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Please! I'm sure we on /. would really appreciate it.
Thanks for your insight!
This is the letter that I emailed to AMPAS at ampas@oscars.org. Feel free to copy/modify/reuse this letter to complain about this ridiculous restriction. The method of distribution of a film obviously has no bearing on its quality.
Dear Sirs,
I am amazed by the shortsightedness of your organization in refusing
to consider films released on the internet for Academy awards. While
it may be true that currently no internet-released film has reached
the necessary popularity to earn one of your awards, this will surely
change in the not-so-distant future. Digital distribution is the
way of the future, and no amount of wishful thinking or ludicrous
regulation on your part (for whatever unfounded reasons) stand even
a slight chance to stop it.
Beyond basic requirements like reasonable picture quality, the quality
of a great picture has no dependence whatsoever on what media it is
recorded and distributed on, or what channels it is shown through.
This should be obvious to anyone-- but especially a group that claims
it is qualified to judge motion pictures.
I have lost any and all respect for your organization. I no longer
consider such a shortsighted and closed-minded organization capable
of judging anything at all-- least of all what constitues a great film.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
In fact, maybe we should start nominating people whose honorable contributions -were- first published on the Internet, to set a precedent.
Of course, in the case of the Oscar, we could just as well set up an -alternative- award, with a more general set of eligibility rules.
The risk would be that the alt.Oscar would "see" only 'net-based films as eligible.
That would be fine, as long as a -third- organization came to the rescue... being open to all films, from any (first-release) medium.
Too easy! ;)
It's all about power and maintaining the status quo. I doubt the labor unions and the various guilds have much control over net movies. Since they can't control, they're going to cut us out. All about power and control. It always was.
Could also be that they are doing the same as they would for a movie released first on video. Although, I can't think of when this last happened.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
You're a fuckin lamer. LAMER LAMER LAMER
P.S. I don't hate The Matrix... I saw it and loved it! I wasn't dissing it! I was trying to make a joke! Damn it, don't let the moderators slay me!
The Academy is owned and payed by the hollywood film industry, and is as such just free commercial world wide.
So ofcourse they are interested in protecting the way they perceive business: via theaters.
Basically they are just afraid and not understanding the new economy - and thats not weird or anything to be ashamed of.
Nobody really does, afterall!
You saw Phantom Menace online before you it was out in theatres? I did, also Matrix and a few others. That raises a question does piracy count as screening?
Like the Oscars really mean anything anyway ...
Most of the films that come out of Hollywood, in my opinion, or from big studios for that matter, is absolute mindless crap designed to provide a mind-numbing escape.
Over the years we have got so used to: bad screenwriting; grade 6 dialogue; poor acting by grossly overpaid actors; overdone special effects (used when the screenwriting becomes so bad that even the screenwriters run out of bad ideas); stereotypical characters; marketing-driven formula plots; and sequel ad-nauseum. Oh yeah, throw in the $8 to see a film. Of course, this is enough for your average 12 to 18 year old that doesn't give a crap about the film just as long as they can feel-up their girlfriend in the cinema, but for most of the adult crowd, Hollywood misses the target.
Of course The Academy doesn't want to give net films Oscars. Net films break the film-making mould, and are free from Academy constraints/influence. In it's simplest terms Oscar = Big Business; Net Films = Freedom.
For truly important creative film-making awards, there's always Cannes (ever noticed how Hollywood doesn't seen to get much recognition there).
Many very good films have recieved awards at Cannes. Of course, you won't see them at your local cinema; you can find them in the foreign section of the video stors, and you sometimes see them on satellite TV. As for independants, it's really difficult to get exposure. The internet will become a cost-effective platform allowing smaller producers truly global exposure, and that's got the Academy and it's big business backers worried.
It all sounds like the RIAA -vs- MP3 thing to me: An industry from an (almost) past era desperately trying to cling onto it's past glory.
yeah, that academy really screwed Fight Club. A surefire timeless classic if there ever was...
:)Fudboy
:)Fudboy
I guess I'm only a Fudboy, looking for that real Transmeta
The 20th century institutions will die out and be replaced by new ones that reflect current art and technology. Don't waste energy on appeasing the fossils.
Web distribution is being perceived (sp?) as a threat to the powers that be. This has happened once before. Ever wonder why your home tv has a 4:3 aspect ratio and all modern movies are in appx 16:9? Before tv, 4:3 was called "Academy Standard" and thats the way movies were filmed. Along comes this upstart technology - tv - and there are dire predictions about the demise of movies at the theatre. So along comes widescreen, panorama, etc, with a 16:9 (this does vary depending on which standard is being used, and i don't remember them all off the top of my head) and now movies are safe again, being different from home tv. Now with the rapid pace of technology, etc, the reactionaries are in a panic and the sky is falling. MP3 has just made it worse - they forsee the same kind of free distribution that has happened with music and a loss of control - imagine if the unwashed masses had input into what was award worthy, and not the self-appointed deadwood that infests orgaizations like this one?
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
It's Funny. Laugh?
I am.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
The net IS comprised of privatised segments. Part of it is owned by MCI/Worldcom, part of it is owned by Sprint, part of it is owned by PSINet etc etc etc.
I mean.. wow. No matter how big the film is.. it's not really a 'film' if it was on the web first. Hmm.
But screening before small test groups and then reshooting parts of it to fit what the test markets like is OK??
Remember Pretty Woman? In the book and the original screenplay it didn't have a happy ending. The test audience didn't like it, so they rewrote the ending, and BINGO! A Winner! Seems quite arbitrary to me....
MSK
What trite crap... you mean that net released stuff on Atom Films isn't eligible?! It's actually reasonable for Independents to get noticed through the web. It costs big bucks to have a digital production laid off to 35mm Academy at a post house!
cad-fu: kicking CAD back into shape
If you distribute movies to theatres digitally via satellite or laserdisc, you solve all those problems at once. But would it be eligable for an Oscar???
The original story said the web.
digital on laserdisc = web?
I think not.
Well why would they be eligable?
First, how many movies that are shown in theaters were screened on the web first? That's like playing a brand new CD on the radio before it's released, so people can tape it.
Second, let's stop the polemic about indie filmmakers and the like. There's a pervasive attitude among Linux people that indies are better than the Big Guys (tm), but so far it has been a complete failure, at least on the open source front. How many indie games have shown even the remotest sign of creativity? 99% of them would have been panned had they been released for the Commodore 64 in 1987. Sites like the Linux Game Tome are testaments to this.
So far, we haven't seen any evidence that indie web film is a different story. We've seen zillions of version of the Wazzzup! commercial, and even most of those were botched. We're a long way away from getting anything independent that's going to compete with Hollywood. And if we did get something great, then academy awards won't be an issue. Just that something great has appeared will be enough.
I read this a while ago.
The academy isn't trying to be stingy here. They're trying to make their rule clear right now, in hope that confusion won't arise later as net films will presumably gain an audience.
The academy has nothing against the internet - their rule includes ANYTHING other than theatres - national or cable tv, videocassette/laserdisc/dvd. Basically, they feel that there is something to be lost in the experience of watching a film if you don't see it in a big theatre. I can see where they're coming from - they care about their art form. Conceited? Perhaps, but it is their awards, and a film doesn't HAVE to try and win anything if it doesn't want to. I doubt a rule like that would have kept the south park movie off the net if they thought they had a good reason.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
As the net has helped independant and amateur filmmakers succeed, the Academy does their best to shut them down and only let the big boys play.
Yet another example of the large conglomerate shutting down the small independants (RIAA, MPAA, etc).
Ugh. Forgot about that :) I could be crass and say "well everyone *important* has already seen it" but no number of smileys or layers asbestos underwear would save me from the ensuing flames :) And I don't believe that anyway :) That's totally my fault -- thinking like a true American(tm): "We're all that matters." My sincerest apologies. Still, does anyone worldwide seriously pay any heed to the Oscars?
Read my stuff.
Check it out!
i took a bitchslapping for natalie portman!!
i took a bitchslapping for natalie portman!!
Just like the RIAA, these guys are so afraid the 'Net is going to spoil their gravy train. For years entertainers have made ludicrous sums of money for doing what many people would consider fun. An athlete who plays 162 games a year and is away from his family for 10 months of the year gets shit when he makes like $3 million a year, yet some actors can work 3 months and make 30 million, but no one gives them shit. All these intellectual property holders have to realize their time is up and free and open are the ways of tomorrow :)
--Jon
Q: How dense is the movie industry?
A: So stupid that they'll take the one tool that would ensure their brands' success into the future and suppress it.
Honestly, given the way other 'creative industries' have buried their heads in the sand, how could anyone *want* these idiots to embrace the Net?
This could be the niche that explodes into a chasm.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
And by old I don't necessarily mean old in age as much as old in their ways... It's like everyone but you and I is still living it large in the 80s or something with all this backwards-ass thinking and whatnot.
Does this mean that if me and my bunch of |-r4d pirat3s st3al the next st4r wars epis0de before it comes out and thr0w it on the n3t that it will be inv4lid for an award?@!$ george lucas - j00 w1ll be 0wn3d$#@!!!!! (even m0re than 1 0wn3d n4tal1e p0rtm4n l4st n1ght)!!
Does this apply to Titan AE? Seems like the timing of the ruling means Titan AE won't be getting any Oscars. The screening was in a theater, but it was delivered over the internet...
Okay fine, no oscars for web movies. That shouldnt suprise any of us. The acadamy has a vested intrest in keeping thier form of distribution alive. They dont give oscars to tv movies.. even the good ones.
So whats the answer? The internet film community (atomfilms et al.) should form their own academy and make their own awards glorifying themselves much like the academy does. Problem solved, everyone happy. Yay ^_^
no
In 1994, the Academy kept a movie (I forget the title) from receiving awards because it premiered on HBO before hitting the theaters.
The result--Best Actress went to a movie that was made in 91.
(Sorry about the lack of details, but I don't have my handbook of useless facts here.)
If you can read this, then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously".
Isn't it kind of funny though that movie studios themselves are looking for ways to deliver their films to theatres using the Internet? =)
--
Exactly. It's a consistent move. Frankly I can't see why anyone would be upset about this. Why should a filmmaker care if the Academy refuses to look at their film?
It's not like they award Oscars on merit anyway.
To address your second point, I do not believe the AMPAS has ever required MPAA certification -- they are very much separate organizations.
yeah, too bad it requires corporate spyware in order to view it.
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
The Academy says the ruling will let filmmakers know its first priority is, and always will be, theatrical exhibition
If The academy refuses to acknowledge the importance of the web, and tries to force film-makers to discard or ignore the marketing capabilities of the Internet, then the Academy is doomed to become roadkill on the information superhighway (my apologies for such an overused phrase).
Let them die. They will be replaced.
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
They say they won't except movies that play first on the net. That should be easy to work around. Just convince a local colege theatre to play your movie for a week. The downside is that means that you have to get a film print made, which costs money (I've heard figures ranging from $600 to $2000). Other than that, if the movie is any good, the theatre owner would probably go in for it if he got to keep most of the proceeds. I'll let you know how it works when I get my first movie made (should only be another 5-10 years from now :) ).
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/
-- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
Actually, your first guess is completely correct. I was at an animation festival at The Ohio State University © with one of the tech leads who described how they rented a theater on very short notice to become eligable for Oscar nominations.
Now on to my comments on Bunny, it was georgeouis. To give an idea about the rendering almost all background shots were done with radiosity but most of the actual characters were simple (if you call that simple) raytracing.
--- Linux... a college project gone horribly right
The oscars don't necessarily have any real impact on the average viewer, once a year people simply get to see their favorite stars on TV, and Hollywood gets to feel important about itself.
So frankly I don't care, and it doesn't suprise me much that an elitist institution like this would be afraid of the internet. You know how the movie industry views the internet. Their fears only go to show that they'll be much less powerful someday anyway, but not quite as bad as record companies will probably fair 15 or 20 years down the road (ie they'll be gone) unless they really change.
It's much more arrogant for them to be "afraid" of the internet than the record industry for one reason: people will always go to see movies (well, as long as ticket prices don't increase 1000% faster than inflation). People can't afford extravagent theaters in their own home, and it's always more fun to watch a movie with a bunch of people. Music is more of a personal experience with the exception of concerts, which don't make up much of the record companies revenue.
So like you said, who cares, let them obsolete themselves. The internet doesn't need them. This whole story sounds like the control over distribution issue (somehow it always ends up being that way). So let them ignore the problem, let them think it will just go away.
Get even!
Bad data is worse than no data. Keep that in mind fellow hackers. :) Let them spy on wrong data. Be creative.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Personally, it does not matter to me who won and didn't win the oscars, MTV awards, academy awards, etc. If a movie is good, its good.
I know it is very important to the film makers. I have a friend who has been tring for 10 years to become a director. With technology like the net, this could be very possiable.
I could careless about what any movie critic says. I like a certain type of movie, they like theres. For example: Event Horizan, everyone said it sucked. Guess what, I like it. Do I care what anyone else says, no.
To sum it all up, there just opionions, like assholes, everyone has one.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
It's obvious that the Academy wishes to avoid the following:
NATALIE: And the winner is...Signal 11!
V/O: This is Signal 11's first Oscar.
[SIGNAL 11 stumbles on the steps leading to the podium and clumsily accepts his statuette.]
SIGNAL 11: Wow. I'd like to thank the members of the Academy for this honor, and the moderators, and Taco and Hemos for taking a chance, and...
[MUSIC UP AND OVER]
SIGNAL 11 [TEARFULLY]: You like me! You really, really like me!
V/O: Coming up next, the nominees for best long-form banner ad.
[COMMERCIAL]
[COMMERCIAL]
[COMMERCIAL]
[STATION ID]
[COMMERCIAL]
[COMMERCIAL]
k., taunting the Lameness Filter with a pointed stick.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
There was mention in previous posts that the Academy Awards are only for movies that are distributed on film to theatres first. Possibly the writers of the original article that /. refers to only saw the implications of that with regards to movies released on the Internet, maybe because there had been specific mention of that, but the implications might reach much farther...
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
1. Exactly when was the last time we cared much for the Oscars?
2. What's the problem with adding another category to awards such as the Webbys... or maybe an entirely new award system altogether for web-screened movies?
Just my 4.13076 Pfennigs...
------------
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
As for categories, as Yanna suggested, we might desire a distinction between live action and animated films, with distinctions between films based on length as well. There should also probably be a greater difference than short and full-length, perhaps 3 categories total. One for films under, oh, say 10 minutes. One for films under an hour, and one for full-length films.
The first annual awards should probably be limited, but designed with the idea that more categories be added later, as webfilms grow in diversity, technique, and complexity. Best Actor, Best Actress, and perhaps Best Animated Character (much like awards for best costuming and art design, but on a character level) should probably be included in this first round, along with Director, Screenplay, Sound, etc. with one set for each category of film (Full length Live Action, or Medium length Animated).
As for voting, might I suggest that voting privileges not be granted to the general public, but only to those associated with the webfilm industry - actors, animators, directors, etc. This, of course, would require a screening process, which would be somewhat laborious, especially for the first few years. A person would only be granted such privileges if they receive credit on a webfilm - either past or present.
In order to be nominated for such a reward, the film would undergo a registration with the awards site, which would allow the awards academy (as it were) to log new voters, as well as the websites where the film may be viewed and the dates of availability. This would be especially useful, as this site could then become not unly a hub for the awards themselves, but for average netizens to find and locate such films.
Hmmm... as I think of it, perhaps actual film nomination would be done by general voting on the web (with IP filtering to guard against some of the more obvious ballot stuffing), with final nomination coming from a panel. Then the final nominees would be turned lose on those actually registered in the webfilm industry.
As for a name, perhaps the Digital Film Awards or Internet Movie Awards (hmmm... the Imas -it almost has a ring to it. Almost.)? I must admit that even though we are moving away from the medium of film, I like the word "film" ever so much more than "movie".
Whatever the name, whatever the structure, in the end, it must be built to stand the test of time. It must be built to become an organization of prestige - so that the awards actually are something of value to those who receive them. Receiving even a final nomination ought to be impressive and exciting for those in the industry, and so these awards must be structured for growth and change, so that they do not become as outdated as the Oscars.
What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. They could simply say that the film has to have a theatrical release in order to qualify, which would still "ensure that the Academy Awards for film continue to be awards for film." Why on earth would it matter where it's shown first?
I agree with the poster you responded to, the Academy is simply looking out for their own.
But to hell with the Academy, they're so biased anyway who gives a shit.
My brother is really into film, and he's got plenty to say about how much he dislikes the Academy.
Traditionally, when an actor wins a golden globe, they are at least nominated for an Oscar. You'll find that almost everyone who wins a golden globe is nominated. Jim Carrey has won 2 golden globes, but has never been nominated for an Oscar. The Academy simply does not like Jim Carrey, despite the fact that he's an excellent actor. You can't deny that his performance in The Truman Show, or Man on the Moon, was outstanding. Not enough? Maybe the Academy simply didn't like these films? Ed Harris was nominated for an Oscar for his performance in The Truman Show.
Why give the Academy the benefit of the doubt when they clearly don't deserve it.
I could be entirely wrong though.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Many academy awards seem to have more to do with politics than the actual quality of the movie. Good acting seems to irrevocably entail some profound endictment of the percieved status quo and establishment. They're politically correct to the point of a fault, and it gets on my nerves.
The Holier Than Thou attitude is annoying, as well. They go out of their way to shun popular opinion - how the hell do we know what's good, what makes us laugh and cry, we're not uppity, overdressed, and overcultured slime can decide for us? The Matrix and Titanic (as much as I'd hate to admit the latter) are two recent examples - both were lauded for technical expertise, but the acting was outright ignored.
EvilSoloman
So what gives? Reactionary fear because of the DVD DeCSS revenue losses? .. there's a reason they're fighting so hard against anything that would enable import of $5 DVDs from less developed countries.
Keep in mind that DeCSS has absolutely nothing to do with piracy when it comes to duplicating DVDs. DVD movies are essentially just UDF v1.02 filesystems (IIRC). The content scrambling is done at the file level, not at the filesystem level. You do not need to circumvent CSS in order to duplicate a DVD. You do need to circumvent it if you wish to view the content of the DVD. The long and short of it is that despite what the MPAA claims, the DeCSS debate has nothing to do with piracy. The debate is actually about access to the content contained on a piece of media that you purchased and legally own.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
They do, however, have categories for indies (Independant Films), foreigns, and shorts. Many of the films of this type (and Documentaries) that have won at the acadamies in the past are more likely to show up on the web before they make the theaters, at least in the US. So, no, it is so bad. It's short sighted, and rather out of character for at least some of the people who are voting members of the Acadamy... I'm still befuddled.
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
Is it really that hard to figure out why this ridiculous piece of crap was decreed? Simple, the academy is in bed with the studios, distributors, et al.
And consequently, the studios, distributors, et al, ruled that the academy must pass this piece of crap ruling, or else the academy looses their pull in the industry.
So why do the studios, distributors, et al, want this ruling passes? Simple again, new distribution methods are threats, and tangible ones at that.
So whats easier for the studios, distributors, et al?
a) Try to adapt to new distribution methods.
b) Use their power to try to crush new distrubtion methods.
I'm all for it. I should go get sized for a tux now...
AMPAS can keep their awards to themselves. Long live the independent film maker!
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
You saw Phantom Menace online before you it was out in theatres?
Seriously though, this ruling applies to films that are released on the web before they are shown in theatres. It does not affect digital films. (That's quite the oxymoron isn't it `;^)
Since the ruling also affects made for TV and cable I don't think this is such a big deal. Think about it.
There are already 80 gazillion awards shows out there, for every possible medium. If the time comes that all movies are released only on the web (and I doubt that) or when broadband is so pervasive that web-released films becomes a viable business you will see either
1. A new category at the Oscars
or
2. A web only version of the oscars ( the webbies or the Bernies-Lee-ies or something inane)
-Marc
A couple of people have brought this up already. Read the stories, people! It clearly says that the movies must be screened in a theater first. That's all. It doesn't say anything about how the film is distributed to the theaters.
Speaking of Titan A.E., ahem, I did an interview with one of the animation dudes behind the movie:
Animation, Titan A.E., and Usability
WebWord.com -- The Industrial Strength Usability Vortal
How to Download YouTube Videos
This is typical of companies who want to monopolize the business. By seemingly controling the *cough* most prestigious movie awards, the academy and the big Hollywood companies hope to control for a while longer, the release and distribution of film... George Lucas will not win another Oscar unless he halts his life long ambition to do a movie without actors, just pure animation... The academy has been a long time fraud when it comes to rating movies, and this is one more step towards the downwards spirl which is Hollywood.
If you've got it, you don't WANT an back-slapping Oscar.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
"We don't serve web movies here."
Next thing you know, we'll be having web movie rights activists and a week where we honor web movies. . .
A very gutsy web movie will make a speech: "I have a dream.. . . . I dream of a world where movies will be given awards regardless of their medium of distribution. . ."
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
Of course the opportunity here is for somebody to create a "Academy of Internet Motion Pictures" Of course rejecting films NOT screened on the web first would be up to whoever starts this thing. In fact, instead of this "secret" vote by members of the Academy, voting should be open to the Internet...you know, the actual consumers of the films and not these "experts".
These people are actors...not real people. Don't be so surprised when they make a nonsensical and selfish decision now and again. They have been doing it for 100 years.
Remember what they did with Toy Story? They had to create a special award so that they could get away, in the public eye, with not giving it one of their regular awards.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
They can keep their politically influenced awards to themselves and stick their heads in the sand if they want.
Couldn't care less. I stopped caring about their opinions on films a long time ago.
*the bird*
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The Academy's rules say that a film's first "public exhibition or distribution" has to be as a theatrical motion picture, so presumably anything shown in a theatre in the same way a movie is is eligible. I suppose an animated GIF could be, if it's shown in a theatre and people are charged to see it.
-jon
Disclaimer: I work for AtomFilms
Ok, this sucks for the independent short filmmaker. Short films have been underappreciated in the US for far too long simply because there hasn't been a good distribution infrastructure.
The web promises to change this, since short films are ideal for streaming media.
The academy's decision basically ignores the economic realities facing short filmmakers. If it's not on TV, the web or airline distribution, where do you see shorts? How often do you attend film festivals?
The ruling makes sense for feature films, since they have a large and profitable distribution network, but not shorts.
Views expressed in this post are mine and don't reflect those of my employer etc...
--Shoeboy
(former microserf)
The Academy Awards, in short, is a mutally-agreed upon Public Relations event for the major studios. Many actors, directors, and other industry professionals have spurned the attention of the Academy Awards ceremony due to its true nature as a toy of the larger studios.
However, the real logistics behind their final decision is this - it takes a lot of money to make film-prints and distribute them. Much like an elitist health-club charging prohibitively high prices for membership to keep out the 'riff-raff', the Academy has long since realized that electronic distribution empowers the average college film-maker with the same degree of power to get his films to an audience as the established endorsed Academy favorites.
They're not totally opposed to new technology; it just has to be new motion picture technology. This is like getting upset because they don't give Grammys for MIDI files.
-jon
IMAX movies get nominated, and they're generally shown at museums and independent theatres. A movie just has to run for a week in Los Angeles; it doesn't have to play at an AMC megaplex.
-jon
Doesn't the webbys cover all things web?
___
Made for TV movies aren't eligible. Straight to video movies aren't eligible. Movies broadcast first on the Web aren't eligble. To forbid the first two and allow the last would be inconsistent.
It's not surprising when an industry does everything possible to retain the current way of doing business, since those with a stake in the present system fear losing it. I recall that the year after a turbine car nearly won the Indianapolis 500, they altered the rules to make it virtually impossible for a turbine car to qualify to enter. Which is why you haven't seen one since. This is just the movie industry's version of the same behavior.
Ah, the sound of a dinosaur railing against the onrushing asteroid.
The Academy is wedded to the current movie industry. What's ironic is that the Hollywood film industry went to Hollywood precisely to evade Edison's patents on motion pictures. How the wheel turns. If they don't embrace the new realities, they will be victims of them.
Heh. Particularly since a movie gets a nomination or award from the Oscars *after* everyone's already seen it and decided whether it sucked or not, there's exactly zero use for them in my mind. I say let 'em rot. People seem to be finding less and less use for them as the years go on. So be it. Let them die in obscurity. I'm sure there's plenty of folks online who wouldn't mind banding together to form some high-prestige awards group :P ... hell, sign me up :)
Read my stuff.
You are quite correct. The worst part is, I actually tacked that on *after* I mailed the letter to AMPAS, so that it would look more "letter-like" when I posted it here. I am a retard. :)
iFilm and AMC Theaters are going to be showing some films on AMC theater screens to allow them to qualify for the awards.
A quick look at both the AMC's site and iFilm show neither have posted anything yet. Since iFilm does have the original news item I'd expect to see something from them soon.
[place
Now, what did get me excited was the story and expressiveness of the stunning "More" by Mark Osborne, which was also nominated that year. Then again, it's not about "death" and it's animated with clay, not global illumination equations, so maybe it's not quite as glamorous. =^)
I believe that the Academy Awards are a fine idea. I don't fault the Nobel Prizes for their choice of subject matter (Economics, for ecample, must've seemed a shining star when the award was created, yet the Nobel's own awards show its unfulfilled promise -- i.e. in Physics or Medicine consecutive laureates always agree on 99.9%+ of their subject; in economics, they may disagree on their most central tenets)
However, I think that this noble concept -- to advance the art by recognizing its finest work -- has been caught in a common quandary. changing too much is disruptive (as in the religious debates of baseball and other sports over decades old rules changes and equipment technology) and difficult. Consistency has value in the judging process and allows competitors to know precisely where they stand. The patina of age and tradition also serves the dignity and value of the awards.
But change is also necessary. Perhaps the conflict is intrinsic. Perhaps, despite the Academy's efforts to recognize advances in the science and technology of film, it is inevitable that an award for 'film' will pass the way of national awards for artistic heiroglyphics or penmanship. there are already major motion pictures in theatrical release that are displayed digitally on electronic screens. It is difficult or impossible to argue that inherently pixellated films like Toy Story (an Oscar winner) are any more film-like than an Australian indy production that was disqualified because its live actors were recorded on videotape instead of emulsion.
The numerous flaws of the Academy's voting system are well known (e.g. it is universally agreed that most members have not seen even a sizable minority of the candidates, and vote based solely on publicity). We at Slashdot have seen similar issues -- to the extent that we scrutinize the process and read 'hidden' discussions like sid=lostkarma, sid=moderation, and sid=metamoderation.
As far as the internet ruling goes: it is merely an explicit elaboration of a rule that has existed from the beginning. The foreign film rule, however, seems to be an accomodation of changing realities that do not violate fundamental tenets of the Oscars (it is a recognition that LA is not the alpha and omega of the film world) I cannot condemn them for their decisions.
We really do need to establish an award for Internet Art, that will stand alongside the Emmys and Webbies of the future. The idea is not original to me. I've read it in this very thread.
However, since this project will not create itself, if there is sufficient interest, I am willing to commit the resources (time, money, access, programming) necessary, including a website to be established by the end of the July 4th holiday weekend. I would appreciate input and assistance in identifying the categories and nominees, criteria and structure, fixing on a name, locating suitable judges, etc. (though public voting can and should play a role, I am not sure the 'standard' web voting site is suitable to be the sole element of voting at present. I have seen too many abuses and flaws in that system) and other areas. I look forward to such feedback, and anticipate turning to Slashdot frequently as this noncorporate venture proceeds.
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
Made for TV movies are also not eligible for Oscars. .. Is this a surprise?
.. this would not be a surprise. What the Academy is saying is that even if you do release the movie theatrically, you're out of the running for an Oscar if you disseminate it using any method other than theatrical exhibition.
If the movies stayed on TV and were never released theatrically, then no
Here's why this is significant. When a movie is ready for release, it is advantageous to get some audience reaction to determine how well they like the film. After all, just because the director happens to find a certain scene to be funny/dramatic/whatever doesn't mean that general audiences will. By judging how the audience reacts to a film, the producer and/or director can decide which scenes need to be cut, changed, or augmented. Now, if the movie is being put out by a major studio, this is not a problem. They just have test screenings in select cities and hire people to come in and gauge the audience's responsiveness to the film.
If you're an indie producer or director, on the other hand, that is not an option. You can't afford to test-screen your movie in "select cities." An idea that many in the indie business are warming to, though, is the concept of distributing a prerelease version of your film via the Internet. This way, diehard film fans can watch your movie and provide you with feedback, which, in the end, can help you put out a better movie. Once you make the necessary modification, you can then release the film theatrically using the budget that you do have.
IMHO, this ruling is intended to stifle independent films. The Academy has a lot of relationships with a lot of the big studios, and there is no disputing the fact that in recent years, many indie films have been a hell of a lot better than the crap that the major studios have been trowling out. The Academy is looking out for its own; it clearly does not wish to allow independent directors the ability to have their films test-screened in the same manner that their big studio counterparts do.
On the other hand, you can simply dismiss the Academy Awards as a meaningful indicator of the quality of a movie and instead rely on the opinions of objective reviewers. That's a process that seems to work pretty well.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Does anyone out there really believe that there is a need for "The Academy" anymore? I never agree with the "winners" anyway. They base their selections on box office receipts and screaming teenage girls. What I'm saying is that I am creating "The New Academy of Visual Entertainment and Education" and it will have it's own awards given to all films without restriction. All we need is for people to ask for it and it will be done. I personally want it. I'm sure you all know that at present we can vote, as a whole, for the best movies, instead of letting some political BS establishment force feed us movies that they say are the best. Everyone has a say! Everyone gets a vote! Even if you like "Ernest Goes to Jupiter" you have a say. All we need is a critical mass. People want it they just have to come out and say it. The more the better. Put that $8.50 back into your pocket and let the industry know they have screwed up for the last time. Most of the people in the "Academy" are too old to use the Internet. Do you want them representing you? Are they someone you can relate to? Do you make $4million a movie? Do you live in the Hills of Beverly or on the beach in Malibu? Maybe some of you do and you get a vote too. But now we all get one. The country needs you. We need you. Make your voice heard. Forget the Academy.
Thanks, Academy
We'll create our own awards
Who needs your cartel?
------
------
You are in a twisty little maze of open source licenses, all different.
I agree with your comment, but to play devils advocate for a minute, you could also have a film that was released for the internet, and, after turning out to be wildly successfull, they decide to have a Theater run of it. This could (at least theoretically) be more of what they were targeting (similar to the way you don't see movies that show on T.V. being eligable for Emmy awards).
I admit that a limited pre-screening for testing purposes would make sense to do over the net, but if it is only 'distributed' to select individuals then how is that different then a private screening or the director passing around a video tape? What the indis might do to get around this is have a process similar to a 'closed beta' in the software buisness. Take names, select people, hold a screening for them (behind some sort of password protection). Then at least you can argue that the movie wasn't released yet, so it being displayed over the internet shouldn't count against it (and additionally you can verify at least one e-mail address to get info from after the screening, since they have to have one to receive the access name/password). It was merely used as the distribution mechanism to a registered test screening audiance. Otherwise FOX's latest release Titan A.E. would already be disqualified, since it was distributed over the internet to a pre-screening in Vegas (to much heralding of a new era).
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Who cares about the oscars-pat-each-other-on-the-back function that takes place every year.
There are MANY international movies that are MORE worthy of awards. That's why I would rather trust Cannes and such.
Movies like:
"Faraway so Close"
"Wings of Desire"
of which City of Lost Angels is a poor remake is just one example.
There are movies like:
"Rosenkrants and Guildenstern are Dead"
"Run Lola Run"
"City of Lost Children"
"Delicatessen"
"Pi"
"Doberman"
"Scent of Green Papaya"
"Dead Man"
"Animals"
Which did not get the recognition they deserve. Yes, so they aren't all mainstream, but there are at least one or two eligible for an oscar.
-Sigh-
Another case of americanism and Capitalism bludgeoning art to a pulp.
My 2c
Domini
... ensure that the Academy Awards for film continue to be awards for film. Other mediums can (and do) have their own awards. But what about movies that are digitally released to theatres? Film has very distinct disadvantages. Reels are huge, heavy, become dusty, can break, and generally degrade over time. If you distribute movies to theatres digitally via satellite or laserdisc, you solve all those problems at once. But would it be eligable for an Oscar???
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
The sister motive is kinda a forgone conclusion.
This however dosn't mean there is any intrest in hurting indi film makers. Thats an unexpected side effect.
Indi film makers aren't corprate enough to afford to rent a theater (thats IF they'll rent it out).
True we are not talking kids running around with cam corders. More like adults with hacked equipment like film recording equipment or a digital camra plugged into a lap top.
Still this is a far cry from organising a screenning. It's not just a matter of getting a place to view the film (and renting a theater is not the best solution for this) but getting the people to preview the film.
Or you could slap it up on the Internet and let people preview it.
It would be untrue to say an Indi film could not do this. However it's no simple task and a lot of run around just to satisfy an anil mandate.
I personally think there is some other reason for being against Internet films.
This may injure films on the internet in the short term. But it could kill the Oscars. All it takes is one net film to win an award from someone else.
I don't actually exist.
There was already precidence for this type of decision. A perfect example is "The Last Seduction". Since it couldn't get a distributer for the longest time the filmmakers sold it to Showtime first. Eventually they got a distributer and showed the movie. Then it did get the required one week showing in Manhattan or LA. But since it was first screened on TV it was not considered a theatrical movie. The same thing applies for web released movies. To be a theatrical release the movie first needs to run in theaters.
I think they gave in to the temptation to show off their rendering features, rather than having them disappear into a vague sense of realism.
It screams "Look at this cool motion blur! Aren't you impressed?!"
Here's a clue to anybody writing a renderer out there: you're not trying to outdo reality.
Personally, I still haven't gotten over "A Bug's Life". The "outtakes" ending was brilliant, the only thing I can compare it to is "Ten Little Gall Force".
I think it was Junet, (or Maro?) Not sure.
Yep, he did the one Alien in adition to the Delicatessen and "City of lost children".
I still preferred the French films... (and not because of foreign hype...)
He also re-used Ron Perlman.. (btw)
As for battles with Hollywood, mayby people should look at Brazil by director "Terry Gilliam", and his Criterian collection of Brazil's "Battle of Brazil" which is a documentary of their stuggle against Hollywood basically raping the original Brazil movie for the American consumer.
(I'm actually a great Gilliam and Tom Stoppard fan)
As for Rosencrants and Guildenstern are dead, that was done by Stoppard (recently did the pitiful "Shakespeare in Love"), but he also had a hand in the scripty of Brazil. It's worth a look.
As for Pi... it's an american film, but not mainstream... kinda watches like a Nine Inch Nails video. It's messages had alot of thought behind it, even though it was not technically clear, but that did not matter much... The messages it had was similar in insight to some things in "Godel, Echer, Bach - The Eternal Golden Braid". You will like it if you enjoy pulp science and phiilosophy.
(Plus music was done my "Pop will eat itself" band member)
Hope you find this info usefull.
Domini.
Since I appear to be bubbling over with animation opinions today, I might as well say that the Diablo II "short" was OK, with some pretty fun stuff. The really impressive short (which wasn't nominated) turned out to be "Sentinelles," a CGI piece from a Québecois animator named Guy Lampron. It was a nice surprise which made the whole experience cool.
Hey, speaking of which, I wonder when the new short from Pixar, "For the Birds," is going to debut in the US. Looks like you can be pretty sure it's not going to be on pixar.com first!
Why is this strange ? Movies released 1st on television are not allowed either. As are movies released on Video caset or DVD. In order to win an Oscar you must send your show to theaters then to the other media.
This may be unfair but it is a long standing principle of the Oscars that they celebrate the big screen. The Emys came out because of this. Anytime net movies become a big deal you will have a Net Movie Award of some kind.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
What if some irate technician at the film studio decides to steal the film and release it on the internet before it came out in theatres. Hey, it happens to songs sometimes...
Or what if some guy brings in one of those miniature video cameras to one of those "screening" things and releases that on the internet?
Donny
Incidentally, Bunny is an amazing film. Great animation, music, writing, metaphors. In contrast to the well-written, but decidedly child-oriented Disney/Pixar stuff, which is visually stunning but conceptually lightweight, Bunny was about death. Nice to see CGI being used for real art for a change.
So? If it weren't for the grandfather clause, would this great short film be disqualified? Has anyone seen any press recognize that this assinine `ruling' has already been violated?
Das Boot was a german miniseries before it was re-cut into a movie. It was nominated for 6 Oscars. Go figure.
I got my info here
This is the movie industry's way of forcing the studios not to show on the internet and keep the films in theatres.
This is an interesting thought, but it's worth remembering that the Academy is not talking about films that are released exclusively over the Internet. Let's say that I'm an indie director/producer, and I've just finished up with a film. In order to measure the audience response to the film before I release it theatrically, I put it out on the Internet for movie fans/critics to download, view, and submit their comments. (Think of it as a peer review.) Once I get the audience reaction back and make the appropriate changes, I then release the film theatrically. What the Academy is saying is that my film is not eligible for an Oscar by virtue of the fact that I exhibited it using the Internet before it was released theatrically on film. I can understand having a separate set of awards for films that are released exclusively on the Internet, but does this make any sense?
Incidentally, the idea of using the Internet as a testbed for a movie is an idea that is catching on with many indie producers and directors. Of course, the big studios just have "test screenings" in several select cities where they show the movie and have representatives there to measure the audience's response to the movie. Obviously, independent producers cannot afford such luxuries, and even if they could, they do not have the connections they would need to arrange such test screenings. This whole ruling seems like it was designed to stifle indie movies in favor of studio movies. In a way, this is hardly surprising, since the Academy is just "looking after its own." On the other hand, since independent producers have been putting out products that have been of consistently higher quality than most of the big studio films, this is a Bad Thing for movie fans.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
- Make a "full-length trailer" available on the Web. Just be sure to make it either start or end with "coming soon to a theatre near you", and advertise it as a trailer for the soon to be released movie.
- Pull a Microsoft. It says "Films which receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture..." [emphasis mine]. So make it a "non-public" exhibition by having a click-though agreement before people can watch it, ala Microsoft's Kerberos extensions.
But honestly, I don't think it matters. There are other award shows now, and there will be other award shows in the future. It would only be fitting for a "Net movie" awards show to be broadcast on the 'net.There's big money here, right? Except for the coarse way in which it is presented (haven't these guys heard of spin?), we should not be shocked at the reaction against a serious threat to the hegemony.
quite often they are not on general release worldwide till after, just the US gets to see them first.
~ppppppppö
The point that rankles me however, is the fact that if you release it to the web first (maybe to gain some notice/revenue)and *then* get it put to film and release it, it won't be eligible.
That sucks.
What we need to do is put together a better award, something for net releases/real movies, and we'll just walk around them - consign the Academy to the dustbin of history.
-- Ender, Duke_of_URL
If the academy wishes to render itself obsolete, so be it. That's their choice. It won't be the first industry to kill itself off for failure to recognize the realities of the world. The Oscar will in time be diminished, not enhanced, for this pathetic attempt to cling onto the technologies and business models of yesteryear.
Certainly, there will be a place for theatrical public display of films in our culture for all of the foreseeable future. Instead of haviing an opportunity to grab a piece of the pie, MPAA has rendered itself a piece of the past.
what happens when everyone has that kind of bandwith?
People like to go to the movies. It gives teenagers an excuse to get away from their parents into the dark with a member of the opposite sex. It gives people without air conditioning a chance to sit somewhere cool in the summer.
People already have TV sets. That is what the internet is and will mean to most people.
The broadband media that becomes mainstream likely won't be "the internet" in any event. Times are changing and broadband is evolving. IP is widely perceived by commercial interests these days as far too insecure for them to peddle their wares on. And it makes sense. There's no reason in the world for an antiquated Cold War topology like the Internet to become the default for the forseeable future, except inertia (read: the same reason the x86 architecture is dominant).
I'm drifting OT here, but think about this stuff. We'll not be communicating on an antique Unix/RFC defined network for much longer. I would bet my Slackware CD on it.
They are saving the academy awards for the few who are already tied into the business. Good, bad, or indifferent, this is the old boys network at work, and nothing else.
Eh...
This is something that has worried me for some time. If, say, UUnet were to decide "sorry, no more internet", would the internet continue to work? Especially considering that most 'networks' are in fact leaf networks that are only singularly connected to the internet, the loss of a major backbone could very well segment it.
I always thought that leaf-nodes should try to have at least two disjoint internet connections (even if slow ones) so that the original intent of the internet, redunancy, is preserved.
Anybody here like the Sandman graphic novel series by Niel Gaiman?
It won the World Fantasy Award at some point, after which the rules for that award were changed to prohibit any future "comic books" from ever winning the award again.
article
Time to clear the air. There are sound reasons for movie producers to not encourage the distribution of movies over the web. /. Given this, what on earth makes you think that someone is going to sink $1,000,000 much less $50,000,000 into a movie, just to have it given away for free by self-righteous schmoozers? The internet isn't going to replace Cinema for one big reason: physicality. The money made off movies ticket sales is NOT the reason people put up theatres, and theatres are where people will pay the most to see a movie. Theatres are profitable due to the side items(popcorn, candy, drinks, etc.) Thus, if the movie makers want to make it big(GOOD advertising costs lots of money, deal with it), they are best off putting their productions in the hands of the people who have a vested interest in bringing the crowds, the theatres.
For the most part, the people crying for movies over the web want them for free. This is especially true for the readers of
Yes, I know, we all want something for free. The difference between myself and those who decry this move is they think they have a higher moral reason beyond basic greed. Complete nonsense.
How will the academy split hairs when digital distribution of films is the norm? We've already seen numerous digital releases in some theaters (Phantom Menace, Titan A.E.)George Lucas's goal is to do away with film prints (they self-destruct, break in the projector, yada yada) while a film on a hard drive is pristine after the 1000th play.
So when the day comes when films aren't films, what will the academy do?
ok.. first person to get an oscar nominated movie into Divx format before the first cinema screening gets the title of "Hollywood Menace number one".
How we know is more important than what we know.
Well, this ruling just created a small market for a video-projection theater which can be paid by such Internet movie producers to "show" the movie there first.
Where does it say the mini-series came after the original movie??? when they say original mini-series that makes me think that the original movie was cut from the same place. i really don't know, i was only 4 when the movie came out and certainly don't remember.
all i have to say is that i need another pint
or three
no i dont actually
hehe
GO AHhaeeHAD ODERTATE MEE I HAVE KARAMA
jungle is massive
I really wish you wouldn't be so boy-scoutish about issues. It's so two-faced, and childish for that matter.
It is not at all strange that people want to stop change. The average person naturaly tries to resist change. Change means loosing your comfort zone. Think of the jump from windows to linux, from the new user's perspective. This applies to the average Academy.
The Academy feels it will loose out if films start being streamed instead of screened. I can understand their point of view.
Have a little empathy folks.
And remmember:
the only reality is change.
b0rk b0rk moose
Movies broadcast over the internet can still be considered "motion pictures", and the art, and particularily the science, behind such motion pictures should be eligible for awards given out by such an organisation, particularily because the "science" of motion picture production has not really changed drastically in a while, but still relies on the same or similar media as it has for decades.
If the Academy is unwilling to consider such motion pictures they ought to change the name of their organisation to the Academy of Theatrical Film Arts and Sciences.
And regarding the title -- how could a net film be a "film" anyhow? Would being spooled from a DAT drive count?
Made for TV movies are also not eligible for Oscars. (Otherwise PBS has some documentaries that should have won!) Is this a surprise?
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
"A 19" monitor and 3-piece speaker system cannot replace a 30-foot screen and Dolby/DTS/etc sound."
But I'm a proud owner of a self-built HTPC.
The audio quality far surpasses that of a theater with better surround imaging. Also got a 6.1 setup (rear center channel via pseudo-THX-EX).
DD/DTS and much better speaker quality. And no sticky mess on the floor. Sure, a FPTV isn't as good as film YET, but just wait.
Most folk'll never lose a toe, and then again some folk'll...
Also, what does this mean for a film such as Titan A.E., which is technically not a film either, since it was digitally transmitted to theaters?
This analogy is simple. If you have a contest for who can do the best landscape, whether a watercolor or a pencil sketch or a painting is turned in, no one cares. It's about the subject. But if you have a best painting contest, and someone turns in a pencil sketch, it's not eligible. Same with films. This isn't to say it's right -- I think the digital process has much more to offer. But it's their awards... and who really cares anyway? Fight Club rocked, and it didn't win shit. So it's screwed up anyway.
peace and humptiness;
jim.
What does the Academy have to lose if they recognize films that hit the Internet before traditional theaters? Makes ya wonder who bank rolls the whole thing and if the "awards" are really awards after all.
Hell, I give myself awards all the time but no one takes me seriously because I'm partial to myself since I do feed and support myself. Could the same be said of an Academy that is supported solely by the giant media conglomerates that they give awards to?
Hrmmmmmm indeed.
Most hardware that can access DVDs will not allow you to even read the *encrypted* data unless you unlock it first. I'd imagine that means that you would not be able to copy a DVD without DeCSS.
.. no.
Err
If you have a DVD-ROM drive and a DVD movie handy, mount it up and examine the directory structure. DVD movies are stored on the media in UDF (Universal Disk Format) format; you can download the UDF specification from the Optical Storage Technology Association. There is a standard directory structure for all DVD-Video discs. For example, the VIDEO_TS directory contains files that contain pointers to the sectors on the media that contain the actual video streams. There is an AUDIO_TS that does the same for audio. If you're interested in specifics on the filesystem, here's a link with more information.
The point is that none of this structure is an industry secret (it's actually a widely-available standard), and nothing prevents you from reading the video or audio content on the CD. The problem is that you cannot meaningfully use it (read: play it) unless you get around the Content Scrambling System. Again, there is nothing that prevents people from doing a direct content-to-content copy of a DVD-Video disc. CSS is meant to restrict use of the content, not readability.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
The Academy should be encouraging and awarding innovation, not discouraging and punishing it. Reminds me of a certain software company we all know and love.
Justin Miller
Associate Editor and Geek at Large,
MacSlash.com
Does this mean Titan A.E. isn't eligible, since it was first delivered via the net? This could put a serious wrinkle in electronic delivery.
What if the net does go away. Or is sliced and diced and balkanized bigtime?
It isn't that far fetched a possiblity. It dovetails well with some of these moves we're all carrying on about.
The world never stands still, and there's really no reason the signals sent down the wires can't be radically changed.
Theres still tons of money to be made, and lots of ways things can evolve. Heck, the net could be chopped up into privatized segments and sold off. Please don't assume it's gonna just continue to evolve as it has. That's the least likely thing, with the storms brewing these days with regard to IP laws, etc.
Normally this would be flamebait, but lets just face it -- the people that run awards shows are simply losers. There's no way around that.
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) -GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
Lets not take this seriously after all the
oscars are just a maturbatory way of hollywood
patting its own back.Meanwhile it becomes quite
a large commercial for any two bit piece of celluloid
they care to cram down our throats.Also,be sure
not to miss every whining bleedingheart
bunnyhugger asking us not to nuke the whales.
Don't forget the fashion moguls and newsclowns
brandishing microphones and Hasselblads,ready
to bludgeon the first heterosexual that ignores
them.
All those awards shows are made to appeal
to the Geraldo/WWF/Nat'l Enquirer level consumers
anyway.
Alexandro Jordorowsky never won an Oscar.I
mean "CLUE" man.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Stuff shown on the internet doesn't put butts in seats in theaters, so there really is no point in wasting the hype of the awards on films that won't garner much more revenue due to an award.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
yes I agree, and in addition I propose we create a Cyber UN to solve all of the worlds problems! Just subscribe to the website, and it would allow small independant countries to feed their starving peoples. At first it would not have mush memberstates, but it would grow with respect of the many pained pained pained people whom it helped.
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
The Academy says the ruling will let filmmakers know its first priority is, and always will be, theatrical exhibition -- not home-based outlets like TV, cable or the Web.
But I suspect that purpose may have to change. As technology gets better, home-based outlets may approach the quality of a theater, and thus theaters would become less important. TV certainly took business away from theaters, and I expect large widescreen digital TVs will take more away, as will Direct Digital Telepathic Media Streams. :-) Eventually, when most of the market is in the home rather than the theater, the Academy might be more receptive to movies debuted elsewhere. Who knows how long that will take, though.
"You'll use our distribution channel if you want any critical acclaim."
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Wow, "Old Media" just doesn't get it. This is the same thing the music industry did. Ignore the web until it becomes popular, then try to muscle their way in against a force that has already reached critical mass. mp3s are popular now because the bandwidth is getting big enough for them. I had Titanic on my computer two years ago (1.5 Gigs) - what happens when everyone has that kind of bandwith?
Kurdt
There are always exceptions...
I think UUnet saying 'no more internet' is about as likely as AT&T saying 'no more voice'.
This is IMHO an example of the increasing amount of backlash against technological innovation in the mass media business. The media businesses don't like having to deal with a system in which they can't have total control from the creative period all the way to the customer standing in line.
This attitude is probably not shared by most of the people in the industry, but is quite obviously the certain feelings of the upper executive tier of the industry, most of whom are very leery of change in any form. They are very satisfied with the status quo because it's making them very rich, and any drastic change in the mechanisms of distribution or production bother them to no end. These are people who started back in the sixties when the media was a strict, hierarchical machine, well greased and well oiled with the blood of young innovators. The current management clawed and maimed their way into their current positions of power, and aren't about to let anything disturb their life.
All we can really do is wait patiently for these people to die. Harassing them simply makes them more anxious and more likely to do rash things, like this announcement. Leave them alone with their millions and someday the younger vultures will move up, looking for chinks in the armor to make their money from.
No, actually I believe you were thinking of Titan A.E., which showed digitally in New York (only) and which Fox made a big deal about delivering digitally to that theater from the West Coast.
I can't really understand this. It's so unsubtle in its monopolistic distribution maintainance that I'm a little shocked to see it from somewhere other than Redmond or the RIAA...
/. preconceptions aside... I'm still trying to understand this. I know acadamy members. The ones I know are artists. This reads more like something being pushed by SAG, except that it's really targetting indie producers. Thing is, the film industry, on the inside, loves indies... So what gives? Reactionary fear because of the DVD DeCSS revenue losses? (You don't want to know how much video revenue makes the studios... I don't know how much, but I have an Order of Magnitude comparison to box office... there's a reason they're fighting so hard against anything that would enable import of $5 DVDs from less developed countries where they mark them for local market values... ) Strangely, the difference between movies and music is, the artists get a fair cut in the movie industry... and a fair say. The acadamy is not run by the studios, the way things are in the recording industry.
All
I'm really confused here, and am looking forward to broaching the topic with one of the people I know who might be able to actually answer this...
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
Err, YES.
temporal:/cdrom/video_ts# cat vts_01_1.vob
cat: vts_01_1.vob: Input/output error
temporal:/cdrom/video_ts# well fuck
Like I said, no encrypted data for you. I can read everything else on the disk just fine, but the videos are not available until the drive has been unlocked. Try it yourself. Pop in The Matrix, and try to cat any of the vobs in video_ts. If you get anything other than a plain old Access-fucking-DENIED (aka: I/O error, read error, etc.), then I guess I'm just stupid.
Once again, someone has replied to me by incorrectly telling me that I'm wrong, and been moderated up for it. Damn, not being part of the collective sucks. At least I posted without my +1, and managed to avoid getting modded down for being right.
------
Still, does anyone worldwide seriously pay any heed to the Oscars?
:) ) know I don't, but there sure are many people down here that do. Oscar-winning movies are usually realeased right after the Oscars ; they oviously do that on purpose. I bet it's the same in many european countries, which is quite a decent market for a film.
:)) )
I (speaking from France, Europe
Oscar winners get more advertised on tv. They are realeased in more theaters. I don't know whether movie trailers saying such thing as "this great motion picture has won x Oscars" really draw more people to the theaters, but I'm quite sure that tv advertising and massive realease do. Just like I'm quite sure that having won an Oscar helps the video to sell at least decently, even for movies that failed miserably at the theaters.
So I would not say that there's zero use for the Oscars : their purpose is to help the movie industry to make mo' money. Of course this does not take into account people like me who will have a negative prejudice against Academy Award winners because I've noticed that my kind of movies never seem to win anything. But I'm affraid I'm in the minority of the audience (who was the guy that said "never underestimate the bad taste of the public" ?
Does anyone here actually go see a film based on what awards it has recieved? Does anyone care that film X got 9 nominations and 4 Oscars? The only way to judge whether a movie is good, is to go and see it for yourself. While this isn't realistically possible we have these "new-fangled" things called movie reviews and "word of mouth". Whether they be on the net, or on more traditional media such as radio and magazine they provide an insight into the quality of the movie, of a far greater significance than a bunch of coked-up producers and actors voting for their friends and collegues.
;o)
It saddens me that the kind of trash churned out of hollywood like Jurrasic park, titanic, quiz show, LA confidential can get such praise. But this is hollywood after all. We can't expect anything less superficial from an industry that gave us that twat Makauley Culkin can we
Rumours abound that James Cameron is working on "Titanic 2: The next generation"...
I don't know... i find the people who are in peacekeeping missions or finding the cure to aids or even developing software to help the masses a bit more important. But, of course, your milage may vary.
Maybe if we ignore the movie industry, it will go away.
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
"..it seems a bit strange that the Academy is apparently doing whatever they can to lock filmmakers into the status quo."
..and I hope....).
.........
This hardly seems strange to me at all. What we have here are awards presentations that thrive on secured funding...
secured movies...
secured production companies...
secured audiences...
Secured Revenue.
To begin with, the awards presentations are a farce in and of themself. The Grammys are hardly any better in this reflection, of which I am a voting member, (although sometimes I cannot understand why I continue.. but I hope..
At any rate, the Academy is afraid of change, as is the Music Industry.
Money is afraid of change.
I imagine it always will be.
Whatever you come across in life.. as long as there's no money in it,... it'll probably be alright.
They don't allow TV movies to ensure that cinema release maintains its primacy. This ruling is just following in that line.
The Academy has always been a whore and always will be.
Their choice of winners has improved in recent times as studio execs (who are the members of the Academy)have taken to changing company every few years instread of staying put for life.
But this is straight up protection of commerical interest and trying to shut out rivals.
Nothing to see here folks, move on.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
... at least one of the two directors of those got some kind of recognition since he was hired for Alien IV. I think it was Sigourney Weaver's idea.
:))). Having to fight to death whenever he has an idea that seems weird (e.g.)unusual to some corporate studio exec doesn't seem to be the way he likes to make films :-). I still think the result was rather nice, though definitely not as good as Delicatessen.
Of course after the movie was done he said that working for Hollywood was a horrible experience, and that he'll never do it again
Anyway, I agree with you that there isn't anything good to be expected from those ludicrous Academy Awards. As for Cannes, it highly depends on the personnality of the president of the jury. Like last year it was David Cronenberg, and they elected "Rosetta" for the best film. The medias and the "profession" yelled that it was a scandal because it's an independant film with non-professional actors. Cronenberg couldn't care less about them, but it's not every president in Cannes' history that had the guts to do so.
Now, what are "Rosenkrants and Guildenstern are Dead" and "Pi" ? They're the only ones I don't know in your list. All the others I've seen and enjoyed (except maybe Doberman that looked a little bit too "hype seeking" for me).
You might want to watch out... As listed on the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences doesn't like you using the term Oscar when it relates to the Academy in any 'digital publications' which I would venture that Slashdot falls under...
As per the Academy's Legal Regulations #7:
The marks "OSCAR®" and "OSCARS®" (as relating to the Academy's motion picture award) may not be used in the title or subtitle of any magazine, digital publication, stage production, video, television program or motion picture not produced by the Academy.
I'm sure all the offending posters will get a cease and desist letter any moment from the Academy's fine legal department.
:P
The members of the academy are quite old, on average, and they are known to be quite conservative at times. Since the net is brand new, they don't know how to handle it so are ignoring the issue, for now, at least. When things in the online world are more certain (to them, at least), they'll turn around. Remember, too, that old people don't live forever (as cruel as that sounds).
Alliance Formed to Help Short Films Skirt Academy Ruling
Internet film portal and directory IFILM partners with AMC Theaters to create a theatrical showcase for selected shorts.
By LORENZA MUÑOZ, Times Staff Writer
Responding to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' recent ruling banning any film from being nominated for an Oscar if it debuts on the Internet, IFILM and AMC Theaters have formed a partnership to create a theatrical showcase for selected shorts.
For a film to be considered for a nomination, the Academy requires a three-day theatrical run, either in festivals or in movie houses. Reacting to the growing number of Internet film sites--particularly for short films--on June 13 the Academy voted to disqualify any film shown on the Web before a theatrical release.
So IFILM, a major film industry Web site, and AMC coordinated their efforts to make sure filmmakers could satisfy the Academy's requirements and still benefit from the massive exposure they receive from Internet broadcasting.
Their showcase, called ifilm@amcseries, will begin next month. It will include up to 10 short films, ranging from five to 15 minutes each. IFILM's programming selection team will choose the best films for the showcase. AMC will review the films and then decide where they will be shown (the locations for the theatrical releases have not been determined).
"Most filmmakers who create a short film hope to create a long film one day," said Kevin Wendle, co-founder and CEO of IFILM. "They want exposure, but they also want to win an Oscar. With AMC's involvement, they can reach the theatrical audience and the mass consumer market on the Internet and the business professionals who look to our site."
The partnership is a significant one, being that short films rarely get exposure in theaters even after they win an Academy Award.
Launched in October 1998, IFILM is a leading directory for the emerging world of Internet film. The IFILM Portal and Directory is the first comprehensive film portal and directory containing links to more than 4,000 Internet films from every major broadband content provider.
The Academy's decision sent a chill through the Internet world of filmmaking. Thousands of filmmakers, who had previously shown their goods on the Web, suddenly found themselves disqualified from entering the Oscar run. Many filmmakers have asked the Academy to consider a grandfather clause, which would allow films to be considered if they were posted on the Web before the ruling was handed down.
The Academy says that the ruling reflects its adherence to standards banning films from Oscar consideration if they have a television or video release before a theatrical run.
"We are the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. . . . We have to pick out an area and stick to it," Academy spokesman John Pavlik said. "We are involved in the theatrical film business."
Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times
Information wants to be free -- but informants want to be paid.
In a time when new technologies are blossoming like never before, it seems a bit strange that the Academy is apparently doing whatever they can to lock filmmakers into the status quo.
Why is it strange? It isn't strange at all that a group with vested interests would want to preserve the status quo. In fact, it's the law.
C'mon, guys, you've been reading about mp3.com and Napster too much! Get your head out of your a** and join the rest of us in the year 2k. The 'net is not going away, and you will someday be making ALL your loot off it (TV and movies as we know them are doomed! Doomed!)
Without having read the article, it sounds like you could just show it in a local thatre once before you publish on the net, and then you'd be clean.
It happens. Apples famous "1984" commercial was actually shown once, on an obscure station once in the middle of the night, in late december 1983, so it would be eligeble for the award for that year.
it all just looks like a gaseous cloud anyways. ;*)
cadfu: kicking CAD back into shape
However, they do have an interesting point, although its not brought out enough in the article. Going to see a movie in the theater is a fundamentally different experience than seeing it on some sort of home system. Not only are the sound and visual special effects held to a higher standard, a movie in a theater is a shared experience.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences (AMPAS) doesn't hand out academy awards to movies produced for the direct to video market, cable, or tv- they've just tacked the internet on to the end of the current bylaws.
If we're going to bitch about AMPAS, let's complain about something that is important- namely why hasn't Jim Carrey won an oscar yet?
Wrong! I hereby deny that Jim Carrey's performance in The Truman Show was outstanding.
----------------
I am surprised that no one has started up a 'Cyber Academy'. People subscribe to the site and become members of the Academy. Once a year a poll is conducted of all films, great and small and members vote on the films. This would allow small independent films to peer with the big blockbusters. It may not be given a lot of respect to start with, but who knows how mush it could receive in the years to come. I am sure the Oscars would have gone through the same pain many, many, many years ago.