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
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
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?
- 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.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