Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Makes Statement In Wake Of Steven Spielberg's Attempt To Block Streaming Giant From Oscars (deadline.com)
Netflix has addressed Steven Spielberg's concerns, after the legendary director indicated he'd throw his weight behind making Oscars harder to reach for Netflix films like "Roma". From a report: The streaming giant didn't name Spielberg directly in its tweet, but considering his views on Netflix films and the Academy Awards, it seems like the statement is associated with the director's thoughts about their participation as contenders in award season. "We love cinema," the official Netflix Twitter account wrote. They continue with a list of things they loved including: Access for people who can't always afford, or live in towns without, theaters; letting everyone, everywhere enjoy releases at the same time; and giving filmmakers more ways to share art. "These things are not mutually exclusive," they concluded in a tweet that could be considered a clap back at the filmmaker. IndieWire reported last week that Spielberg, who serves as the current governor of the Academy's directors branch, intends to argue in favor of changing the Oscars' rules to prevent streaming services from entering the campaign field at the Academy Board of Governors' next meeting. Because Netflix is a home-viewing platform, critics like Spielberg say that it's better-suited for the Emmys, which celebrate TV, a medium inherent to home-viewing.
Old man yells at cloud.
http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
Sorry, this whole thing is about protecting territory. With falling ticket revenues these big producers need to think about story quality rather than raping Indiana Jones.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
In a lot of movie theaters today, aren't the screens rather small? I use a projector and I tend to think the field of view for the movies I watch is not really that much different than movies theaters I've been in (apart from IMAX of course). With so many very large screen TV's around these days it seems like this would be true of a lot of people.
I would say without hesitation the audio is WAY better than most movie theaters as I can hear it instead of a muddy mess.
And of course, it doesn't have other people distracting you while watching...
If you really value the cinematic experience, value the home theater for that is where people are truly WATCHING movies as opposed to just killing time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Aren't the Emmy's for 1/2 or 1 hour TV shows with multiple episodes? That's a little different than a movie. I don't pay attention to any of the award shows, but I'd guess that the Emmy award also has a category for made for TV movies. But traditionally, those have been much lower budget than what a Netflix movie can be.
Then there's the reality that a 28 inch 4:3 CRT isn't on the high end of TV sizes any longer. At a 7 foot viewing distance you can get a 70 inch TV that will take up 40 degrees of your FOV, which is considered "cinematic". A 70 inch 4K TV can be easily be found for under $1K these days.
Nor is everyone at home listening through stereo speakers that are built into the TV. 5.1, 7.2, Atoms, etc. systems can be put together for a reasonable price, up to insane amounts of money.
So the lines that separate the movie theater experience and what can be viewed at home are not nearly as clear as they were 20, 30, or 50 years ago. Mr. Spielberg may have a point, or he may be stuck in the past.
Steaming is much closer to television than it is to movie theaters. I'd be surprised if any Netflix movies were even nominated, most are horrible. Most and maybe all of Netflix's hits are series not movies.
Imagine for a moment: Netflix produces a really great indie film. They farm it out to Cannes, Sundance, and a couple of other festivals, and it wins awards. Then they stream it. Now a Palm D'Or winning film is utterly ineligible for Oscar contention, but cleans up at the Emmys. Hollywood is outraged. Netflix issues a statement telling the Academy to go suck on Green Book and Driving Miss Daisy.
Finding God in a Dog
Will there be Program access rules for online video???
Or will comcast be able to move there RSN's to Comcast internet only?
Given the convergence of video and film production and the ubiquity of digital distribution the distinction between "Television" and "Cinema" is becoming harder to define. This inevitably leads to arguments over the boundaries between the two and turf wars between those with a stake in one camp versus the other. They will battle it out to protect their "hereditary fiefdoms," even as their defining characteristics merge and the distinctions become ever more intangible.
The plebeians won't care, having little investment in the outcome as their hardware capabilities provide them more and better options for data consumption and the media giants become more brazen in their attempts to capture consumers and lock out competition.
If you live in a time when TV was always second behind TV.
Actors would take roles in TV series only if they were desperate or already gave up the chance of an actual celebrity acting career.
Enter HBO and Netflix showing that TV does not have to be cheap and low quality. Their series are clever, funny, fresh and deep while old-school cinema is presenting us with nothing than the 15th superhero remake. Or 80s remake. (star Trek, Ghostbusters anyone?)
bickerdyke
Theater ticket sales in 2017 were $11.1 billion for the U.S. + Canada, $40.6 billion worldwide.
2017 sales of the same movies on disc and digital format were $20.5 billion for the U.S., $47.8 billion worldwide. Compounding this is the fact that disc and digital movies are cheaper per viewer. So each dollar spent on disc and digital formats represents more viewers than a dollar spent at the theater.
People view theatrical release movies predominantly in the home, not in theaters. It's been this way since the 1980s when movie rentals on videotape became a thing. If you honestly make "viewed in theaters" vs "viewed at home" the distinguishing factor, then no film (except those intentionally withheld from disc and digital distribution) qualifies for the Oscars.
Don't all the voters get DVD screeners so they can view the movie? I don't think they are going to the theater to watch them all.
Wow, I hadn't realized how inconsequential Spielberg had become. He's given up on competing, apparently...
There is good reason why to not like streaming - especially the downward-spiral of ever less bandwidth and more compression leading to terrible artifacts in complex scenes. But Spielberg and many other oldies chide streaming for all the wrong reasons - they are living in some nostalgia land where being surrounded by other people in a movie theater is idealized as a feature rather than a nuisance.
And for everyone who can invest like 4000 bucks into home cinema equipment, the display and audio quality is on par if not better at home than in 99% of all movie theaters (if the material is not compressed to death).
Every time the major studios try to exclude NF from anything, NF just turns around and does it better in-house. Hollywood really needs a good ass-kicking anyway, and it could be a good way to get out in front before Disney does the same.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
...and nobody watches them anymore. Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, et al should make their own streaming media award show that doesn't have any of that political crap.
The controversy is about Netflix refusing to screen their films in theaters
But that is not even true, as they did put Roma in a small number of theaters.
The story is about Speilburg saying Netflix doesn't belong even if they do that, because they offer only a TV experience.
What I am saying, is that at this point for a lot of people from a quality standpoint, TV viewing and theater viewing now kind of overlap in terms of quality. Depending on your weighting of importance for aspects of viewing (like distraction free viewing) a better viewing (or at least comparable) can easily be had at home now. So it's not a good argument to say Netflix is only offering a TV like experience, when it can rival theaters... I liked Bird Box as much as a lot of things I've seen in theaters.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Netflix doesn't compete at Cannes anymore because Cannes requires films to follow France's release window law, which requires a delay of 36 months between premiere in theaters and premiere on all-you-can-eat VOD.
bought a refurb Epson Cinema 720 for $350, ordered a 120" diagonal screen and at 12 feet away it really feels way more movie theater wise than a large screen tv.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
And how is going to a Cineplex to watch a movie on a giant TV, instead of film projected onto a screen, often with only a small audience in attendance, intrinsically different that going to a friend's house, and watching a movie on their giant TV, among a small audience of friends? On the other hand, I do favor keeping movie theaters alive, and Netflix does release their movies in them first when they want Oscar consideration. So this is just about Netflix bringing them to their service too soon after? P.S. When studio hotshots like Spielberg go into a studio's private screening room to watch an upcoming release on a large 4K TV, how is that different than a person watching a Netflix movie in his home private screening room, on his large 4K TV? Better bit-rate? Some of the people at the avs forum have mini-theaters in their homes. Popcorn machines and luxury seating included. P.P.S. Has the practice of mailing out copies of films up for Academy consideration to those voting on them, so they can watch them at home changed? I'd like too learn if any Spielberg films were distributed that way.
The fact is that, considering the size of modern TVs and quality of modern home audio, most of us have setups at home that are just as, if not more (When you factor in the overpriced tickets and food; and the awfulness of the crowd that only the Alamo Drafthouse bothers to do anything about.), enjoyable than the theater for most movies.
SOME movies do command a theater showing. But many donâ(TM)t. Picking on a few WW2 flicks, for example: The Darkest Hour and The Imitation Game were fantastic. But I see no compelling reason why I should have gone to see them on the big screen. And indeed I did not. Dunkirk and Saving Private Ryan, OTOH, absolutely did and DO command theater attendance.
The weirdness here is that much of Spielbergâ(TM)s work does fall into the category of âoeMust see it in the theater.â If, for example, he were to re-release the Indiana Jones Trilogy into the theater, I absolutely would buy tickets and see it on the big screen. Something still good, but much less spectacular, like The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind... not so much.
Imagine all the people...
I don't even have a a 4K projector myself either (someday), but project it pretty large and it looks really good.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Oscars have been dead for years. They always vote for some crappy movie no one liked.
is it stated somewhere in the oscar rules that a movie must have had a theatrical release?
what are the actual rules for a movie to be allowed? if netflix movies tick all those boxes, include them.
if you don't agree with that, well, then you must revise your oscar rules, so that it becomes clear and there is no confusion who can compete and who can't.
unless they do that, excluding netflix is unfair.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
So many people are just dismissing Spielberg's point without bothering to understand it. People think that the Oscars are for movies and the Emmies are for TV, so if Netflix makes a movie then it should be eligible for the Oscars... but we've had made-for-TV movies forever and they get Emmies, not Oscars.
So what is the difference between the Emmies and the Oscars, really? Well there are historical and business reasons why they're separate, but Spielberg's argument is one of principle: the theatrical experience is different from the home experience, and the awards should be delineated by that difference. In other words, Spielberg is saying that the theater is a part of the medium for Oscar-eligible films.
If you're going to disagree with Spielberg on this, you have two options: you can try to come up with some other factor which separates works eligible for Oscars from works eligible for Emmies, while still significant enough to justify separate awards for each, or you can say that they're all just videos and having separate awards is dumb.
Some people will point out that Netflix did put its submissions in theaters very briefly, but this was a transparent ploy to use the greater popularity of the Oscars, compared to the Emmies, for promotional purposes. It was quite clear from the start that the theater was not intended to be part of the medium for the Netflix films.
Given the fact that Black panther was nominated for best movie, I would say focus on nominations rather than fighting Netflix. Nothing wrong with comic book movies such as The Dark Knight, but nomination for movie of the year? How come Blade Runner 2049 wasn't nominated for best movie?
This may lead to Netflix buying/building its own cinemas just to show movies in.
Mike Stoklasa of Red Letter Media said it best, to paraphrase: I can't wait for the megaplexes to die. I agree totally.
For decades, the moviegoing experience has gotten worse and worse, with the exception of Alamo Drafthouse. There are no other brick and mortar movie theaters I can stand to go to. In most of them, you have to listen to mouth-breathing, nose-picking yahoos who have to explain the movie to their even dumber friends in real time. Given that the entirety of the the modern marketplace is based on selling me an experience in which I never have to experience discomfort, why in holy hell should I have to put up with that crap?
Even the dine-in theaters that try and imitate Alamo are lame. Big seats and fancy food and drinks that are poorly made, not quite fresh, and indifferently served detract from the experience, not enhance it.
Instead, big screens (or projectors) and sound systems are better than ever and getting less expensive all the time. Invite some friends over (or not!), and pause for bathroom breaks or to freshen drinks, rewind to watch that scene or hear that line again, and not have to listen to idiots (except for the ones you are friends with and make exceptions for).
So much more wrong with Spielberg's thinking, but that is just the brick-and-mortar cinema part.
I hope art houses stay around forever, and I will visit them every chance I get, in NYC, Philly, Austin, San Francisco, or wherever I find them. Seeing small independent auteur films with like-minded non-nose-pickers (who don't mind reading subtitles) is an experience that I count as one that makes life worthwhile.
Not so the megaplex.
In order to qualify for the Oscars, Netflix does release its movies in cinemas (which disqualifies them for Emmy consideration). Spielberg's argument is disingenuous. It has nothing to do with preserving the "cinema experience" and everything to do with preserving the Hollywood studio system and it's arcane release windows. It's a system that encourages big budget blockbusters (the kind of movies Spielberg makes) and hurts low budget niche films (the kind that Netflix makes).
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
A 'Jew Block'
fuck Spielberg, make better movies again Captain Dinosaur, otherwise, get out of the way....