Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix Pulls Out of Cannes Following Rule Change (variety.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

Netflix and Cannes are breaking up, at least for now. On Wednesday, Netflix chief Ted Sarandos said that the streaming platform won't be sending any films to the prestigious French festival, formally severing the strained relationship between the two power players. The decision was a long time coming, after Cannes established a rule that forbade films without a theatrical distribution plan from its competition. From, a report: In an exclusive interview with Variety, Netflix's chief content officer says that the festival sent a clear message with a new rule that bans any films without theatrical distribution in France from playing in competition. Netflix could screen some of its upcoming movies out of competition, but Sarandos says that doesn't make sense for the streaming service. "We want our films to be on fair ground with every other filmmaker," Sarandos says. "There's a risk in us going in this way and having our films and filmmakers treated disrespectfully at the festival. They've set the tone. I don't think it would be good for us to be there."

Netflix made a big splash at the prestigious film festival last year with two movies that showed in competition: Bong Joon-ho's "Okja" and Noah Baumbach's "The Meyerowitz Stories." But after the 2017 announcement, French theaters owners and unions protested the inclusion of these films to Thierry Fremaux, the artistic director of Cannes. Netflix was amenable to having their movies play on big screens in France, but a law in the country requires movies to not appear in home platforms for 36 months after their theatrical release.

97 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Cannes's loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cannes established a rule that forbade films without a theatrical distribution plan from its competition

    So Netflix announces that it has pulled out of a competition that it can't enter.

    LOL. WTF.

  2. Netflix will just build its own Cannes by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If things like this preclude Netflix from attending places like Cannes, it only makes sense for Netflix (and every other non-traditional studio) to get together and build their own awards festival. It's not like Netflix is going away anytime soon, so this is a loss for Cannes.

    Of course there'll be the obligatory Blackjack and Hookers.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      With Blackjack! And Hookers!

      More seriously... I'm not a huge fan of Netflix anymore, but who really cares about Cannes? It has always seemed to be more about what movie stars and rich people were going to show up, and less about the movies themselves. It's the model from 1930's Hollywood.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by Luthair · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Its not just Cannes, the Oscars also has rules requiring a theatrical release. There are three ways I see this changing - (1) Netflix, Amazon et al. shower money on a struggling name-brand festival or (2) a streaming platform manages to release something that causes a public outcry for not being considered, or (3) the theatre industry completely crashes and burns in the USA. Perhaps #1 is most likely?

    3. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      I choose (2). When this happens the digital film festivals will be the leaders, and Cannes a nostalgia fest for virtue signalers like the Oscars.

    4. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      If things like this preclude Netflix from attending places like Cannes, it only makes sense for Netflix (and every other non-traditional studio) to get together and build their own awards festival.

      It would appear that this is the only logical course. I don't understand Cannes position here, isn't their thing to give awards to good films, not give awards to good films that are distributed only in one specific way? It seems they care more about protecting distribution methods than actual quality of films being made. It will be their loss if they continue down this road.

    5. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      (2) a streaming platform manages to release something that causes a public outcry for not being considered,

      How about (2a) Most people don't really care for award shows anyway, so streaming services continue to make tonnes of cash without them, making award shows become even more irrelevant than they already are.

    6. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by sd4f · · Score: 2

      I get the feeling they will start their own awards festivals, after all, my perception is that netflix started producing their own content because the rest of the industry were trying to call the shots on the content they were distributing.

    7. Re: Netflix will just build its own Cannes by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      But it lacks prestige. Half the reason people go to Cannes is the status increase associated with being associated with Cannes. It ain't about the films. Netflix doesn't enhance status of anyone.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Yup. I mean- despite being retired, I see fewer movies in theaters every year.

      I have a decent theater which isn't incredibly expensive and has pleasant enough audiences.

      I'm not sure why I don't go.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      Also, the fact that a film wins an oscar is almost a negative indicator for me these days.
      So is "critical acclaim". They are either out of touch with reality or shills. I can't decide which. But I think the big studios can cut critics off and leave them without an income, arriving late compared to all the other critics who saw a film for free, a week early, and who get intided to special events.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    10. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      And really, they should.

      Cannes is not really a good fit for Netflix. It's very much about showcasing the sort of works that don't get as much mainstream publicity. Netflix is a business interested in mass appeal. Nothing wrong with either, and both aspects will try to incorporate parts of the other, but it's not really the same philosophy.

      Netflix are quite capable of showcasing their own works. Amazon and other studios setting up streaming services have a motivation to push streaming generally, in the same way that Cannes pushes cinema generally.

      It's not really a loss to Cannes. It has its niche which isn't going anywhere. Streaming services can find their own niches.

    11. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Amazon....Manchester by the Sea....

    12. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A lot of people complain about the cinema experience. Too expensive, dirty, no control over volume, no pausing for bathroom breaks etc. They often say they would prefer to watch at home.

      The issue Netflix has is that it can't afford the budgets of really big movies, because the ROI when you only charge less than 10 bucks a month for all-you-can-binge-watch is not there. But not all movies are that expensive, and as shows like The Expanse and Altered Carbon demonstrate it's possible to do really high end stuff on their budgets.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re: Netflix will just build its own Cannes by kenh · · Score: 1

      Cannes is mostly inside baseball and media tabloid fodder. If it disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't matter much.

      Except, you know, all those small, independent art films that get "picked up" at Cannes for distribution would lose an important market. Cannes serves a purpose in the movie business ecosystem beyond showcasing the latest Woody Allen movie.

      --
      Ken
    14. Re: Netflix will just build its own Cannes by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      This will still happen. Content companies like Netflix will pick them up. Everyone is hungry/desperate for content.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    15. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      It also shows that movies aren't a very good medium compared to mini series for many stories.

      Try imagining either of your examples as a movie, trying to cut it down to 2-2.5 hours would make either horrible IMO. Now things like Game of Throne, Walking Dead, etc.

      Then there's the horror genre which works surprisingly well with a longer run. MTV (yes I know) created a series based off Scream. And you had multiple hours to get to know the characters so you feel more loss when the bodies start dropping.

    16. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The Oscars were for the express purpose of drumming up interest in movies to sell more tickets, which profits studios and theaters both. Cannes, too.

      Letting Netflix in just benefits Netflix as it is both studio and a single "theater".

      You are seeing a collision of the reality of awards shows vs. the surface fiction of "recognizing a superb job". It never really has been the latter.

      Surprise! Snubs are not really snubs.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    17. Re:Netflix will just build its own Cannes by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Not really. The main point of Cannes is to give showing to small films that otherwise wouldn't be picked up. I don't know how they select which films to offer, as I doubt they could show everything, but they have a history of picking up small, unusual, films that later become popular (as well, of course, as a whole bunch of films that flop).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  3. Re:Stupid by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    France is the land of protectionism, and has been for the last ~250 years. They have their own ideas about what their culture should forcibly be that is highly resistant to change at best, highly xenophobic in the middle, and forcibly destroying other cultures within its own country (i.e. Basque) at worst. This is probably also part of the culture war that France has been waging against the US in vain for the past decade.

    French culture is the Eric Cartman of all of the world's cultures.

  4. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If I understand correctly (I do not live in France), the law prohibits video-on-demand releases for 4 months after the theatrical release, and prohibits "streaming" video-on-demand releases for 36 months. My guess here is that streaming is not used as a technical term, but rather as a way of distinguishing between individually paid purchases/rentals (a la iTunes, Google Play, etc) and subscription-based services (a la Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc). So no -- they don't have to wait 36 months to get The Last Jedi on blu-ray or even on iTunes, but they will definitely have to wait to get it on Netflix.

  5. Re:Cannes's loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Comic book superhero fan is angry at Cannes. Who'd have thunk it!

  6. The market by mapuche · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cannes has a big market. Hundreds of movies are sold globally in Cannes, at the same time many producers find funding for their big budget and indie films. Netflix buys movies for a few dollars and produce a mere handful of movies every year. Cannes is still a very important platform for the movie business.

    Netflix has no space in this old world. They simply put online any movie and people may decide to watch it or not. Meanwhile everyone else has to find distribution and pay for advertising.

    1. Re:The market by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 2

      Hundreds of movies are sold globally in Cannes, at the same time many producers find funding for their big budget and indie films. Netflix buys movies for a few dollars and produce a mere handful of movies every year.

      Cannes showed about 70 films at the last festival, Netflix is scheduled to make 80 films this year, on top of just as many TV shows. Netflix's production budget is $5B/year.

    2. Re:The market by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Nothing lasts for ever, Cannes like all the rest of the live acting gigs, is doomed. Reality based animation will wipe them out, the creations of writers and animators together with virtual robotics will simply flood content channels. Why pay Hollywood puppets with delusions of grandeur, the reality is all the other people actually make movies and those movies work best when the puppets do as directed when directed and park their egos off stage. Sure calling them stars worked for marketing, selling the public relations illusion of them instead of trying to sell bad stories poorly told but it simply does not work any more except for the naive and gullible and they are usually broke or near broke. As for the rich breeding with those narcissists to feed their joint egos, well, they are figuring out the folly of that, incompetent spawn, with massive egos and no talent for anything, well, except posing about.

      This spat just highlights the end of the poseur show and the beginning of a new streaming era with a whole lot more people creating content. A probably rebirth of the studio business, where studios are leased out for a piece of the action and an agency established to source creators for those studios. Basically to undercut Hollywood et al by a long shot.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:The market by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "Reality based animation will wipe them out,"

      Yeah right, thats why nobody shoots live outdoors anymore because it can all be greenscreened with CGI. Oh, wait...

    4. Re:The market by kenh · · Score: 1

      Cannes showed about 70 films at the last festival, Netflix is scheduled to make 80 films this year, on top of just as many TV shows. Netflix's production budget is $5B/year.

      So? The 70 shown at Cannes are a curated list drawn from submissions from around the world, Netflix's lists are more commercially-oriented, for the most part.

      Displaying 70 movies is a very, very small part of the purpose of Cannes in today's movie industry - it is the deals for movies yet to be made that is the real purpose, it provides industry leaders the opportunity to compete for scripts and actors face-to-face.

      --
      Ken
    5. Re:The market by kenh · · Score: 2

      I just watched the Hitchcock classic "North by Northwest" and I think almost every outdoor scene was filmed either in front of a projected movie (50's green screen technology) or on a soundstage (where the ground is absolutely flat and the trees are all 50' or taller and spaced about 5 feet apart - just like in nature!).

      --
      Ken
    6. Re:The market by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Cannes and the people who still think it is important are going to get a bitch-slap of truth--or die a slow agonizing death.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    7. Re:The market by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      The 20th century called...it wants its business model and collaboration platform back.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    8. Re:The market by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "Most of the best movies are a combination of many, many talents. No one person is "making a movie" and "directing puppets", there are directors, cinematographers, sound technicians, musicians, writers and yes, in fact, actors."

      Netflix is where it's at. They have been producing solid content like crazy. Nearly everything they do is good--really good. They are smoking Amazon when it comes to content creation and more so when it comes to quality. No other entity is capable of competing. This Cannes business is a stab by people that are getting left behind--fast.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    9. Re:The market by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      it is the deals for movies yet to be made that is the real purpose, it provides industry leaders the opportunity to compete for scripts and actors face-to-face.

      Yeah we know how trade shows work, they we're very popular before the Internet...

  7. Re:Cannes's loss by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, they'd have to release the movies involved in French theatres (okay), but then (according to the law) wait 3 years before offering it to their French subscribers? Obviously not happening.

    Or they could show the movies at Cannes, but not have 'em compete. Why not compete alongside the other movies shown there? Not fair (at least in Netflix' opinion, and I would agree).

    Remaining option: pull out all together. Which seems quite a reasonable choice given the above.

  8. If it were unoirtant enough by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    Netflix could spare some money and buy a defunct movie theater somewhere in France, and just show all their new movies there on a rotating basis. They could make up the money with very overpriced movie food and drinks...

    1. Re:If it were unoirtant enough by tepples · · Score: 1

      Netflix already does that with a theater in Los Angeles in order to qualify for Academy Awards. But French law differs from that of the USA. By French media chronology law, doing what you suggest would require Netflix to make the movies in question unavailable on its own service for 36 months after release.

    2. Re:If it were unoirtant enough by gravewax · · Score: 1

      No they can't as then they would not be able to show them on Netflix for 3 years due to the fucked up laws in France.

    3. Re:If it were unoirtant enough by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Be unable to show them on Netflix? Or be unable to show them on Netflix France?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:If it were unoirtant enough by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      ...and these are arbitrary rules so they would just change them if someone tried a work-around.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    5. Re:If it were unoirtant enough by tepples · · Score: 1

      What's the other market for films in the French language that relate to French culture? Quebec?

  9. This could get messy... by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Netflix Pulls Out of Cannes"

    So this year the Netflix "big splash" will occur somewhere else.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:This could get messy... by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2

      I can almost hear Chevy Chase reporting "a frustrated Cannes could not be reached for comment."

  10. Re:Netflix is the new "Made for TV" by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They're not in the film business anymore than Hallmark is.

    There's a huge difference between creating films for the big screen and just pumping out content for your own TV station.

    If you want to be a film company then release to theaters.

    Not quite, I think TV Films are pure lowest common denominator, they're more about holding the Network audience than pulling in new people. Make 'em cheap and don't alienate people is the model.

    Netflix is allowed to be more daring, their size gives them a bigger budget, and their audience has a constant demand for adequate content.

    I think the better analogy is direct to video. You can chase a niche audience and drop a moderate budget if you push it, but you'll never get the revenue stream to justify a blockbuster. They need to be good enough to draw an audience, but not so good as to justify a night out.

    That and they sometimes get the big budget films that don't quite turn out.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  11. 36 Months? by magister · · Score: 2

    Netflix was amenable to having their movies play on big screens in France, but a law in the country requires movies to not appear in home platforms for 36 months after their theatrical release.

    Where does a law like this originate? So if it is shown is a theater, at all, it automatically cannot be shown on any other medium for 3 years? I can only see this as a law to fuck content creators over because Theater operators have more say with the elected than the electorate. Maybe this is a sign that most of the 'would be' democracies are oligarchies as well :(

    --
    -magister-
  12. Difference is Oscars are in USA, not France by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    ts not just Cannes, the Oscars also has rules requiring a theatrical release.

    Unlike the Cannes festival, which requires a release in France, the Academy Awards require a release in Los Angeles in the USA. Unlike France, the USA lacks national regulation of motion picture release windows. This means after a movie completes its 7-day run in LA, it can go straight to Netflix with no mandatory 36-month waiting period.

  13. EP-101: How to Encourage Piracy by jaminJay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "[A] law in the country requires movies to not appear in home platforms for 36 months after their theatrical release" - customers want it now, not later, and they will probably get it now, or not at all. This kind of law ensures jobs for lawyers, though, I guess...

    --
    Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
  14. Re:Hmmm.... by tepples · · Score: 2

    Why do I get the feeling that the big Hollywood studios are behind this?

    It's not the studios as much as the theater owners. The studios want to shorten the release windows, to the point of offering BD, DVD, or a la carte VOD at the tail end of a movie's 4-month theatrical run instead of waiting for its conclusion. The studios want to earn some money from people who would otherwise settle for infringing cam/telesync/screener rips, while theater owners don't want to have to compete with legitimate home theater.

  15. Re:Hmmm.... by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    Let us know when you can't care any less.

  16. Re:Stupid by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    'dollar theaters' used to be a thing, used to be very popular. then early-release dvds and ondemand, piracy and streaming killed the entire segment of that industry.

    There are movies that you might want to see in a sumptuous big-screen movie palace with high-end audio, but today's living room is a better place to view anything than those dollar theaters were.

  17. Re:Netflix is the new "Made for TV" by gravewax · · Score: 3, Informative

    They're not in the film business anymore than Hallmark is.

    There's a huge difference between creating films for the big screen and just pumping out content for your own TV station.

    If you want to be a film company then release to theatres.

    "Film : a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images and shown in a cinema or on television."

    They are most definitely in the film business, what they are not is in the theatre business. really they should rename the festival to the Cannes Theatre release film festival.

  18. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    250 years? Since 1768? I mean, there was the whole French Revolution, guillotines, Napoleon, the utter humiliation of the Germanic Peoples (a couple times until the Germans figured out they were Germans and got their shit together), the utter destruction of the French Army against the Russian Winter (a couple times), etc. I mean, that's not exactly helping your point there, sir.

  19. Re:Stupid by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    France is the land of cultural protectionism

    FTFY

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  20. Re:Stupid by blindseer · · Score: 1

    Do you close your eyes and think of England?

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  21. Re: Cannes's loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And they're right. 3 years between theatrical release and home release? Not realistic and not viable in the 21st Century. Locarno and Venice are more in touch with today's reality. Screw Cannes.

  22. Re:Stupid by gravewax · · Score: 1

    me? in north america? i would absolutely love a mandatory period between theatrical premiere and 'home video' (or streaming or television)... why? 'dollar theaters' used to be a thing, used to be very popular. then early-release dvds and ondemand, piracy and streaming killed the entire segment of that industry.

    In other words you are selfish and would like to remove everyone elses preferred choice so that you can have your way. The consumers have spoken and what you want is not what the majority want.

  23. Re:Cannes's loss by war4peace · · Score: 1

    Speaking of...
    "a law in the country requires movies to not appear in home platforms for 36 months after their theatrical release"

    That's helping viewers how, exactly?

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  24. Re:Cannes's loss by Kopp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is not to help viewers, it is to help theaters. In their mind, if the movie is available to quickly after theater release, people will just wait for the digital release, and not pay an overpriced cinema ticket (easily 15€ per person when 3D) They had the sale rules with VHS/DVD,etc albeit much shorter (I think 6 months, reduced now to 3, not sure) The French love stupid rules like that... In the same way, you cannot broadcast movies on tv channels on friday and saturday nights, so that people would go out instead.

  25. Re:Cannes's loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And as a result, people actually go out and the cities are enjoyable... unlike many US cities which are deserted after work hours.

  26. Re:Stupid by knorthern+knight · · Score: 2

    > me? in north america? i would absolutely love a mandatory period
    > between theatrical premiere and 'home video' (or streaming or television)...

    This gives me an idea for saving newspapers. Howsabout a mandatory 6 month period between news being printed in a newspaper, versus being broadcast on radio and/or TV or on a webpage [/sarc]

    > 'dollar theaters' used to be a thing, used to be very popular. then early-release
    > dvds and ondemand, piracy and streaming killed the entire segment of that industry.

    Horse and buggy used to be very popular. Then Henry Ford's new-fangled invention killed that industry. What's also killing movie theatres is Hollywood greed. For the first few weeks after a release, Hollywood studios now want around 95% of all ticket revenues. Raising ticket prices doesn't help, because the "Hollywood Tax" eats it all up anyways. The only way movie theatres can survive is by...

    * exorbitant markups on popcorn/candycocacola/etc.
    *selling a half-hour of ads before the movie begins.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  27. Re:Stupid by reboot246 · · Score: 2

    Well, that's changing pretty fast now. Are they a Muslim-run country yet? If not, wait a few years.

  28. Re:Cannes's loss by war4peace · · Score: 2

    People going out isn't because they are forced to go to the cinema.
    It's the culture. Children grow up going outdoors, socializing etc., in ways they find enjoyable and result in them doing the same thing through their adulthood.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  29. Re: Stupid by scottrocket · · Score: 2

    "Have you ever noticed that some folks are made and then just sit on the studio shelf for a while."

    When I was made, I didn't sit on a shelf for awhile! : )

  30. Re:Cannes's loss by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    And as a result, people actually go out and the cities are enjoyable... unlike many US cities which are deserted after work hours.

    Are cinemas the only thing to do in france or something?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  31. Re: Cannes's loss by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of film festivals in the USA with loads of prestige. Netflix doesn't need Cannes, and Cannes loses prestige as a result of this ruling.

    On another note, this spat can be expanded into the field of sport. American cycling teams don't need the prestige of the Tour de France. The USA has much more spectacular cycling routes through the Rocky Mountains of the USA, in comparison to the Pyrenees and Alpine routes used by the Tour de France.

    And an American team wins the world series every time.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  32. Re:Cannes's loss by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Cannes established a rule that forbade films without a theatrical distribution plan from its competition

    So Netflix announces that it has pulled out of a competition that it can't enter.

    LOL. WTF.

    Congratulations, your reading comprehension is poor.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  33. Re:Stupid by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

    and forcibly destroying other cultures within its own country (i.e. Basque) at worst.
    That is no longer true since about 30 years ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  34. Re:Stupid by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

    More than a few years. Even the highest estimates only place the Muslim population of France at about 15% by 2050.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  35. Re:Netflix is the new "Made for TV" by coofercat · · Score: 1

    It's a shame you're currently marked 'troll' for having an opposing view.

    I disagree with your assertion that if you're not in cinemas you're not in the film business though. I don't really see why the screen the production is shown on matters - it's the content that counts (to me, at least).

    As for this, Cannes requires you're in French theatres, which means you then need to wait 3 years before you go to DVD/streaming or whatever. For Netflix this is obviously a big problem, and so I'd have to agree with their move here. Hopefully they'll team up with other streaming providers and start another film festival someplace else and side-step Cannes altogether. Whilst Cannes has the name right now, so does "Champagne", yet many wine critics are saying the best sparkling wine now comes from England. The same may start happening to Cannes in a few years...

  36. What happens if they do the opposite? by Johnberg · · Score: 1

    "a law in [France] requires movies to not appear in home platforms for 36 months after their theatrical release." What if they release on home platforms first and then decide to release it in the theater? Do they have to wait 3 years before releasing it in the theater? Or can they never show it in a theater in France if it's on a home platform first?

  37. That law doesn't make sense by xvan · · Score: 1

    but a law in the country requires movies to not appear in home platforms for 36 months after their theatrical release.

    Doesn't this put out Cannes every international movie? Or are dvd relases and streaming services delayed in France.

  38. Re:Cannes's loss by rhazz · · Score: 1

    Children grow up going outdoors, socializing etc., in ways they find enjoyable and result in them doing the same thing through their adulthood.

    If that were true, then they wouldn't need draconian rules to force them to live their lives in a specific way.

  39. Re:Cannes's loss by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Trump is on it.

  40. 36 months (3 years) from Theaters to Home Theaters by EnOne · · Score: 1

    does that include things like Blu-Ray?

    Is France just now getting The Martian and Mad Max:Fury Road?

    Do they have to wait until December for Star Wars:The Force Awakens?

    --
    Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
  41. hmm by ruddk · · Score: 1

    Sort of unsatisfying.

    --
    L'Idiot
  42. The decline of people caring by Rastl · · Score: 1

    More and more these types of things - film festivals, award shows - are being shown to be irrelevant in the current world. Back in the days before immediate access to everything they were big events that were a way to see the big name actors (gender neutral term). Now you can't avoid seeing them in any online social or media outlet.

    People see the movies they like and those make money. Critics go for the weird, niche movies that no one cares about. And the ones the critics like make it to the festivals and awards shows. Being commercially successful might get a few technical awards but if it makes money then it's not award worthy.

    And it's time for these things to die. Really. They're film industry masturbation. People aren't interested in watching hours of awards being presented and acceptance speeches along with - gasp - some 'candid' footage of actors in the audience. And cord cutters can't watch anyway since it's all on broadcast media.

    That being said Cannes is a private event and the people who run it can make whatever rules they want. Netflix doesn't really care and it's not going to hurt them in the slightest. They'll probably even find a way to turn this to their advantage.

  43. And Cannes careens toward irrelevancy by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    ... but I'm sure that will suit the French just fine.

  44. Lol France thinks it matters by plague911 · · Score: 1

    How silly of them.

  45. Re:Cannes's loss by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    Yeah....welcome to the 20th century Cannes.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  46. Re:Cannes's loss by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    It does help explain why Netflix has a different library available in different countries. I had always read that it is due to solely US Hollywood greed

  47. Oh yeah? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Netflix was amenable to having their movies play on big screens in France, but a law in the country requires movies to not appear in home platforms for 36 months after their theatrical release.

    When questioned about the law, Netflix replied "Yeah, well, we're gonna make our own Film Festival... with blackjack, and hookers. In fact, forget the Film Festival."

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  48. Re:Stupid by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    How do you reconcile that with the importation of massive amounts of "diversity"?

  49. Re:Cannes's loss by war4peace · · Score: 1

    And they don't really have them.
    The interdiction to stream for 36 months is not to their benefit, it's an argument AGAINST what you're saying.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  50. Re:Cannes's loss by war4peace · · Score: 1

    Actually, the libraries difference are not only because of that.
    The main reason Netflix can't make certain movies or series available in certain countries is active exclusivity contracts.

    Some movies and TV series have been licensed for distribution to company A for country X. Therefore, Netflix can't offer those movies because they would breach the exclusivity contract.

    this doesn't help customers either, by the way. It's actually why I ditched Netflix after a few months.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  51. Re: Cannes's loss by sabri · · Score: 1

    it's a French law.

    Well done, French, you just played yourself. This is as stupid as the Superbowl, where competitors from a single country call themselves "World Champion".

    But then again, the French always like to shoot themselves in the foot. Aren't they supposed to be on strike this week?

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  52. theaters are becoming irrelevant by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Caanes risks becoming irrelevant also.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  53. Re: Cannes's loss by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    And an American team wins the world series every time.

    Depends on what you mean by "American". Toronto won a couple in the 1990s.

  54. Re:Cannes's loss by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Yes, but Netflix business is built around distribution of movies to the home user, not to the theaters. 3 months is a bit more reasonable, but still quite reasonably unacceptable.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  55. Re:Stupid by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Not just cultural. They also protect the use of terms that elsewhere are taken to mean a variety of production to instead mean "made in a particular geographic area", and they protect the use of native names, and...

    Well, I guess you *could* stretch "culture" to cover everything from techniques of wine production to "what to name the baby", but I would consider that a misuse of the language in English.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  56. Re:The demise of the movie theater by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    You have a point, except you don't even need 10 foot TVs in the home. THX recommends a 40 degree viewing angle, which at 5 feet away from the wall is a TV in the 50 inch range. (Ours is a 55 inch Sony Bravia.) The problem with 10 foot TVs (I knew someone with a projection system that was at least that big) is that you can't get far enough away from them in a normal size room to view them properly, for the same reason that people usually don't choose the first three rows in a theater.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  57. Re:Cannes 2018... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...but by God, it was released in French theaters!...

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  58. Re:Dollar theaters? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid I used to go to dime theaters. Where did they go? What social change should *I* advocate to get them back?

    IOW, I think you're being foolish. Inflation has happened. If you want to preserve dollar theaters, the prescription to do that is a major depression. Are you sure that's what you want?

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  59. Re:Stupid by Jahoda · · Score: 1

    This is probably also part of the culture war that France has been waging against the US in vain for the past decade.

    You might have been reading an alternate history text, but you might recall somewhere around the invasion of Iraq based upon manufactured evidence that the Congress decided we needed to rename "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries", along with a whole host of other petty insults from the American right towards one of America's longest-standing allies and best friends. But the reality is that I am lucky to work with a French company, and my experience is that they are nothing but lovely people who enjoy America and american culture very much. Do you know any folks from France? I wonder if you do. I suspect the answer is probably somewhere around zero.

  60. Re: Cannes's loss by jeaton · · Score: 1

    Except in 1992 and 1993.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  61. Re:Stupid by Baki · · Score: 1

    Kind of. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for a clarification and some background on how this came to be.
    Colbert was a french minister under Louis XIV in the 17th century.

  62. Re: Cannes's loss by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Close enough ;)

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  63. Re: Cannes's loss by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    I'm a pedantic jackass - there's no such thing.

  64. Re:Stupid by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I wasn't asserting whether or not it was justified, I was saying the protectionism isn't just about culture. Yes, I think authentic Burgundy has been justifiable. I'm less convinced about Champaign. And, WRT to the other reply, I don't consider what to name the baby cultural...at least not usually. You could make an argument that "Biblical names are cultural", and I'd accept that, but saying "I'm naming him after his grandpa" doesn't sound to me like a cultural choice. Traditional, yes, but that's slightly different. I suppose naming a baby "Arthur Dent" would be a cultural choice, but it's not one I've encountered.

    Yeah, my examples aren't French. I don't live in France, and have only an exterior view of their country, so if it didn't hit the news I probably won't know about it. But their protectionism has hit the news frequently in areas that are only vaguely related to culture in any narrow meaning of the term. This doesn't mean I disagree with all their decisions. Often I just say "de gustibus..." and let it go at that. Sometimes I think it was warranted, and sometimes I think it was silly, but in any case it's a matter of taste.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  65. Hurtful rule by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Netflix was amenable to having their movies play on big screens in France, but a law in the country requires movies to not appear in home platforms for 36 months after their theatrical release.

    Seems like waiting 3 years before selling a now-forgotten movie to individuals is like shooting one's self in the foot. Yes?
    Allowing further distribution after having dwindled the theatrical runs seems a far better benefit for everyone here - producers (continued revenue stream) AND consumers (still have interest in a release, and likely at a cheaper viewing).

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.