Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Net Films Not Eligible For Oscar

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the resisting-the-inevitable dept.

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."

6 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. You can't even use video here == elitism by 1DeepThought · · Score: 5
    Recently at the AFI (Australian Film Industry) awards a highly acclaimed movie was ruled ineligible because it as shot on video. The movie was a highly acclaimed indepedant Australian movie called "Dust off the wings". It was shot on video as the producers could not afford to shoot on film. The movie received great critical acclaim and very good box office taking for an independant film. Yet the Australian Film Industry ruled it inelligible as it was shot on video. Sounds like you have a similar situation. It smack of elitism if you ask me.

    --

    "Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember

  2. Re:News flash by kaphka · · Score: 5
    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.
    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 producer or director, on the other hand, that is not an option. You can't afford to test-screen your movie in "select cities."
    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.
    IMHO, this ruling is intended to stifle independent films.
    Contrary to the prevailing opinion on Slashdot, don't always have sinister motives. 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. Other mediums can (and do) have their own awards.

    --

    MSK

  3. My take... by Shoeboy · · Score: 5

    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)

  4. Re:News flash by cje · · Score: 5

    Made for TV movies are also not eligible for Oscars. .. Is this a surprise?

    If the movies stayed on TV and were never released theatrically, then no .. 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.

    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
  5. Loopholes... by Zagadka · · Score: 5
    Two possible loopholes I can think of:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
  6. News flash by tilly · · Score: 5

    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