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.
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
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.
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
> 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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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".
To address your second point, I do not believe the AMPAS has ever required MPAA certification -- they are very much separate organizations.
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.
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
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
AMPAS can keep their awards to themselves. Long live the independent film maker!
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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)
I don't think Titan A.E. is in danger of winning many Academy Awards, unless they add categories for achievement in uneven CGI quality, stilted dialogue, poor voice direction, or "most stubbornly reliant on choppy rotoscoping." I kid, however, because despite these shortcomings it manages to be an enjoyable movie. Just don't hold out a lot of hope come Oscar time. =^)
Of course the more common answer will be. . .
"Grandpa, what's an Academy Award?"
~ppppppppö
I mean.. wow. No matter how big the film is.. it's not really a 'film' if it was on the web first. Hmm.
I mean.. wow. No matter how big the film is.. it's not really a 'film' if it was on TV first. Hmm.
The Oscars are meant for theatrical releases. Why is this so difficult to understand?
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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
I think the movie in question was Blue Skies. Jessica Lange was nominated for Best Actress before anyone could point out that the movie came from HBO.
That's probably AMPAS' motivation for this statement. They consider the Internet to be a broadcast media, just like TV, and they don't want to see something get nominated, then have to take the nomination away because it hit Atom Films first.
Anyone for an "academy" of indie films? Something that could stay true to the spirit of independence, while allowing filmmakers to take full advantage of all available outlets, whether they be traditional film, Internet studios, or cable outlets like Independent Film Channel or SciFi's "Exposure" series.
Every day we're standing in a wind tunnel
Facing down the future coming fast - Rush
This sig intentionally left blank.
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
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 ?
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?
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.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.
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...
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?
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.
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
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
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
"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?"
That very idea of a geosynchronos orbit ad banner was considered about two years ago. I don't know the specifics too well, but i do remember laws were passed to prevent today's sunset from being brought to you by pepsi. Although the hacking prospects for a screen that big would be impressive.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
I think UUnet saying 'no more internet' is about as likely as AT&T saying 'no more voice'.
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
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...
I mean.. wow. No matter how big the film is.. it's not really a 'film' if it was on the web first. Hmm.
So if you don't want a film to get an Academy Award, you hire a thief to break in and dupe the prints, then screen it from some site in Taiwan, and it can't win.
Then you put it on Napster.
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.'
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.
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?