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."
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
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.
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
MSK
To address your second point, I do not believe the AMPAS has ever required MPAA certification -- they are very much separate organizations.
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
AMPAS can keep their awards to themselves. Long live the independent film maker!
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
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.
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 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
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.
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?
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
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
-- @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?"