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
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
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.
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.
...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 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...
Oscars have been dead for years. They always vote for some crappy movie no one liked.
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.