The times are changing and they’re changing fast. Steven Spielberg is apparently leading a charge of Academy members to block Netflix from qualifying for Best Picture unless its films have a four week theatrical run. I guess the idea is that Netflix has an unfair advantage over films that are produced and distributed the traditional way, as those have to confront the economic realities: Rotten Tomatoes, the hive mind, opening box office, competition, and an increasingly frugal public that isn’t going to lay out $100 for their family to go see something like The Favourite when they can see twenty movies a week if they want, for 6 months of access at the same price, on Netflix — on a massive 4K TV, mind you, with surround sound in the privacy and comfort of their own homes.
I feel like, in a sense, the world has grown around insular Hollywood and the Oscars. There has never been a point in Steven Spielberg’s career when he’s had to sweat profusely to get a movie made. And from Jaws onward, this isn’t a man who has ever had to worry about whether or not he can afford to go to the movies. His theater experience is at one of handful of the ultimate screend in the world, ar the DGA or other cloistered venues. Moreover, most of the people writing on this subject, film critics, filmmakers, and bloggers likewise, don’t have to lay down green to see movies either. They complain when they aren’t invited to screenings for free. I sometimes wonder how their coverage might be different if they did have to pay for movies, ditto Spielberg.
They aren’t looking at the problem from the point of view of the people movies are supposed to be made for: audiences. Not the Oscar voters. Not the critics. Not the filmmakers. Not the bloggers. Not the hive mind. The people who supposedly buy tickets or pay Netflix’s monthly fee — those are the people who are supposed to matter. They are telling us all what they think by how they spend their money.
Here are a couple of good discussions on the topic. First is the brilliant Paul Schrader’s idea, which he posted on Facebook:
THE NETFLIX DEBATE. I have no animus against Netflix. Ted Sarandos is as smart about film as any studio exec I’ve ever met. Distribution models evolve. The notion of squeezing 200+ people into a dark unventilated space to see a flickering image was created by exhibition economics, not any notion of the “theatrical experience.” Netflix allows many financially marginal films to have a platform and that’s a good thing. But here’s my query: it involves FIRST REFORMED. First Reformed was sold at a bargain price to A24 out of the Toronto FF. Netflix, which could have snapped it up as easily as it swats a fly on its ass, passed. As did Amazon. As did Sony Classics and Focus. But A24 saw a commercial path for this austere aesthetic film. As a result First Reformed found a life. A24 rolled it out through festivals and screenings from 2017 to 2018. And it survived. Not a big money maker but profitable for A24 and a jewel in their crown. Would First Reformed have found this public acceptance if Netflix and scooped it up (at say twice the price A24 payed) and dumped it into its larder? Perhaps Bird Box and Kissing Booth can fight their way through the vast sea of Netflix product to find popular acceptance, but First Reformed? Unlikely. Relegated to film esoterica. A different path? My proposal: For club cinemas (Alamo Draft House, Metrograph, Burns Center, Film Forum) to form an alliance with a two tiered streaming system (first tier: Criterion/Mubi, second tier: Netflix/Amazon).Distribution models are in flux. It’s not as simple as theatrical versus streaming.
Second, here is how director Joseph Kahn put it, from his perspective:
I would have really liked this thread, except for the need to tack on “or even yes Green Book.” To me, that shows this is a person plugged into the mass hysteria machine online. It’s absurd. “Or even Green Book.” Green Book is exactly the kind of movie audiences WOULD pay to see, dawg, in case you’re keeping track. Most of the movies film critics want audiences to pay to see? They won’t. They will wait until it goes on VOD.
Sean Baker suggests the “theatrical tier” for Netflix. Maybe? Pay a bit more, and you get to see the Netflix movies for free in a theater? He’d do it. Would you?
Ava DuVernay whose When They See Us will stream on Netflix later this year reminds us of the power of distribution.
One of the things I value about Netflix is that it distributes black work far/wide. 190 countries will get WHEN THEY SEE US. Here’s a promo for South Africa. I’ve had just one film distributed wide internationally. Not SELMA. Not WRINKLE. It was 13TH. By Netflix. That matters. https://t.co/lpn1FFSfgG
— Ava DuVernay (@ava) March 3, 2019
Look, folks, to Spielberg and anyone else suddenly paying attention — this train left the station long ago. LONG LONG ago, and it isn’t Netflix’s fault. The train left the station before Netflix even started sending out DVDs through snail mail. Netflix fed a need by adult people who wanted to stay home and watch movies, to not even go out to the video store — that’s how much they wanted to stay home. Like Millennials who use Grub Hub and UberEats, Amazon and AmazonFresh, people like shit delivered to them at home. On their own time, at their own request.
I remember being at a dinner party in 2009. The Hurt Locker was about to win Best Picture. I was sitting at a table with upper middle-class white women, and they were talking about movies. None of them even went to the movies but once or twice a year if a film required it. That year, they’d all seen Avatar. Avatar is an “event movie,” and so not only had they seen it, but they believed it was going to win Best Picture. “No,” I explained. “The Hurt Locker will.” They stared back at me blankly. These were educated, actualized women, and they’d never even HEARD of the Hurt Locker. That was ten years ago.
The train has left the station. It’s all over but the shouting. Can Netflix and the old guard reach some kind of compromise? Sure. But the basic problem remains: people don’t WANT to go to the movies unless there is a good reason to shell out a lot of money. Spielberg himself, along with George Lucas, helped to invent the blockbuster. They know it. (Then in 2013 they warned the monster would bring about Hollywood’s implosion.) Even if Spielberg became a guy who made movies like Lincoln, he was still the guy who made Jaws (the greatest movie of his career and perhaps of all time), Raiders, E.T., and Jurassic Park. He and Lucas have predicted that in the future movies people paid to see would only be event movies.
There are so many reasons for this that have nothing to do with Netflix. International box office greed and lust. Competition with China (why is this our fight?). The pressure to “open big” or else fade out. Look, First Man’s big story was that it didn’t make back the money it cost. Well, neither did Vice, bankrolled with the largesse of billionaire, much like a Renassaince patron. Neither did Roma make profit than can be easily defined, but that never became a story. Why? Because it was behind the Netflix shield. It could afford to be “just art” where First Man, reduced in some minds to a commodity on the marketplace, couldn’t. Right?
The Oscars maybe used to be about celebrating the theatrical experience, but they have long since abandoned that after the Academy pushed the date up one month, thus forcing the whole Oscar race, give or take a movie or two, to be decided at film festivals and at home on screeners, far from the madding crowd. So give me a break, okay? The Oscars have long been the “custom meal” aboard an airplane while the rest of the plebeians stuck in coach had to eat whatever the airline was serving. They have been out of touch with the movie-going public forever. And just because suddenly Black Panther, Bohemian Rhapsody, and A Star Is Born were nominated this year doesn’t fix that. None of this is the fault of Netflix. It is merely evolution. Mutation, adaptation, survival.
Just remember this: 99% of everything that has ever been alive has gone extinct. Extinction is the rule. Survival, the exception. So sure, dress it all up and pretend that Hollywood still cares about people going to the movies. Hollywood cares about what it’s always cared about: making a lot of money. That’s why it’s going the way of Broadway with only movies based on other movies. Spectacle that is looking more and more like games than movies. Games, because games are starting to sell even better than movies because users like the interactive experience. Don’t blame Netflix because Big Hollywood shit the bed with terrible films. Why not do a little soul searching on that?
Netflix is carving out a separate path for artists who want to make the kinds of films that still represent cinema as art — storytelling of the human kind. That’s not a bad idea. The Oscars themselves are fighting for relevance, not because of Netflix, but because they’ve long since given up the idea that there is actually a race for Best Picture. It is a controlled game every year, played, fought, and won by publicists (mostly) and an entire industry that helps shape it. But the fix is in, folks. We know that. We know, despite how many films are nominated, usually only two, sometimes three will have a shot at winning.
Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman is a movie no one has to worry about playing in theaters. It will make money. When they release it for a span of weeks, it will make money. For Netflix, I assume the thinking is that if The Irishman plays on its platform, more people will watch it than they would if it earned $100 million at the box office. Their question would then be — do we care about the Oscars?
The pearl clutching is a bit rich, to put it mildly. But sure, let’s put the movies in movie theaters so elitists in New York and LA can see it on the big screen. Everyone else in America? Let them eat cake. Or in this case, let them watch it when it comes on streaming.
Netflix has an advantage in giving mainstream audiences a platform for watching films that wouldn’t do as well theatrically, but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. And clearly enough of the Academy still fears Netflix that Roma didn’t win Best Picture. So while I understand where Spielberg is coming from, the bottom line is that if a film like Roma meets Academy eligibility requirements, and also if it was created with a theatrical release in mind (rather than a streaming service or an HBO or network-TV premiere), then I have no problem with it contending for Oscars. Sasha’s point above about The Hurt Locker vs. Avatar reinforces that the Oscars long ago stopped being about popular films that necessitate being seen in theaters. I know Spielberg was involved with Green Book and Sasha likes and defends it, but Green Book is not something that I would have paid to see or been grateful to have paid to see in theaters. When the Academy doesn’t go for the artsiest, most obscure Netflix choice like Roma, it’s not like they’re picking a huge box-office or cultural phenomenon that plays any better in theaters. And Academy voters see everything on screeners anyways, so Netflix doesn’t really offer films an Oscar advantage since the mass visibility is outweighed by the Academy’s understandable bias against Netflix, support for old-fashioned studio releases and indie box-office successes, and access to all top films regardless.
Worth noting: Spielberg is the worst thing that ever happened to Filmmaking, probably. He’s a masterful artisan, undoubtfully, probably the best ever was… but he’s been too focused on moneymaking, and agreeing on a corporate agenda that has been extremely damaging not only to the industry, but also to society itself… “Saving Private Ryan”, “Amistad” are among the films I wished I never saw, and that never were made… even “Schindler’s List” completely misfires what could have been, by that over the top ending, in a film that the only character development that is shown, is the one of the characters that aren’t jewish. His very best film, to me, it’s The Color Purple, the film that made me feel hope, he would develope from an extremely talented artisan focused on pure entertainment, into a fascinating author with a conscience. But no, he went on to produce disneyfied bland, over the top films like “Hook” and pure Oscarbait like “Schindler’s List”, “Amistad” and “Saving Private Ryan”… don’t get mistaken: he’s done several masterpieces (“Duel”, “Jaws”, “The Color Purple”, “Lincoln”) and a real lot of strong films (“Raiders”, “Encounters”, “ET”, “Poltergeist”, “Minority Report”, “AI”…) and has a place in movie history on his own right… but when Spielberg talks about the industry, he’s never objective: he is talking on his OWN benefit and doesn’t give a flying f*ck about anything else.
The Color Purple, Spielberg’s ONE (?) film starring an ensemble of women. And it’s really good, too. Of course, plenty of his films have one or two women (mother/girlfriend/wife/babe, usually), but they rarely interact with one another.
It sucks that so many film makers have emulated and continue to emulate him in this regard. Hollywood used to churn out a decent amount of blockbusters with female protagonists and ensembles with multiple actresses that would INTERACT WITH ONE ANOTHER (Gone with the Wind, The Sound of Music, Mrs. Miniver, Funny Girl, Auntie Mame, West Side Story, The Snake Pit, All About Eve, Imitation of Life, Peyton Place, The Exorcist, etc. were all huge financially, the years they came out), but that all seemed to evaporate when Spielberg and George Lucas came to prominence. The ’80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s have a much lower amount of these films than the preceding decades.
Great female driven films have always been around, they just have a much smaller budget than whatever the guys are doing nowadays, which constrains the kind of stories that can be told.
Turn to television if you want to see the ladies flex their money-making might, and the incredible storylines that come with them.
plus, John Carpenter >>>> Steven Spielberg. There, I just said it. And I know, Carpenter is macho-centric… but still, he delivered the unique matriarchy in film history that is “Ghosts of Mars”, one of his weakest films and still SO underrated and enjoyable.
I live in a mid size city and my art theater usually have movies for 3 or 4 days. Small cities don’t get good movies unless they have an Ivy League University.
I agree with this. I saw “Birdman” and “Theory of Everything” during the ONE week they showed at the theater in my area during their initial, pre-Oscar nominations release.
Yeah right. Go see Transit at a movie theater if you can. I can’t. I already saw it because I’m awesome. I wouldn’t mind Netflix having it available NOW. Leave Spielberg alone. Leave this man alone. That’s my take.
SKAM S3E3 – so cringey I have to watch clip by clip.
BLOCKED!
I watched the 4th straight away right after nonetheless.
I’m assessing my Skam options.
Will the French series put me in good standing, or do I need to sample the others to be reminded that everything is better in French?
Bryce, Transit is now at the top of my queue.
Is there anything else I need to do to remain in compliance with the terms of of our friendship?
Oh you’ve got to ask Bryce. He’s the one who watched all versions and told me about the show, I’m just trying to catch up with the best bits.
I am watching the third season of the French version, according to Bryce’s recommendation, because there is a cute pansexual couple.
We should take inspiration from the medieval times, force every village to open a cinema and force the people to attend at least once a week. The industry would be saved!
That’s how I saw The Exorcist. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b58f4f128f05e5da1841aab59377089cdcc36906f35427efbaa17515766e91b3.jpg
Sasha is on fire, and for the first time I agree with her. Good post.
Ava DuVernay nailed it.
First Reformed would have had 190 countries and literally hundreds of millions of people having it front and center when they opened their netflix on their hundreds of millions tvs, tablets, whatever. It would have had a larger audience than the one it found.
As a netflix (and HBO) subscriver) I don’t mind their movies that they would like to put up for consideration a couple of weeks in advance in theaters. As they did with Roma.
And Spielberg never did pay for anything, you got that right. Sorry dude but for some families 100 dollars for ONE MOVIE night out is serious money.
Isn’t Spielberg’s next movie going to Netflix. I can understand Spielberg’s concerns and the awards concerns. I don’t like proprietory stuff. I don’t like that I have to subscribe to Netflix to see ABC, then subscribe to Hulu to see DEF, then subscribe to HBONow and on and on. Soon, those subscriptions add up to a cable bill. But Netflix is going is releasing movies simultaneously in theatres & online. I guess it depends upon what the producers & Directors come to agree with Netflix….right? I love sitting in the theater watching a movie, but for me, it’s scheduling and working into a schedule to watch movies that’s a problem, so I end up missing a lot of movies. I have AMZ prime movies and I like it because I can binge watch, I can give reviews and read peer reviews. I notice that HBO is on AMZ. Maybe Netflix should allow its movies to be seen on AMZ?
Netflix: Hello. This is Netflix customer service. How may I help you?
Spielberg: Hi. Netflix filmmakers should have to struggle for financing like I do. Please fix this.
Li-Wright: Hi. Maybe Netflix should allow its movies to be seen on Amazon? Please fix this.
Somebody 1: Hi, the floors of my mutiplex are slick with congealed Dr Pepper snot. When will you fix this? Why do you hate theaters?
Somebody 2: Why doesn’t Netflix have every movie ever made that I ever want to see? Why do you have such contempt for cinema?
Somebody 3: You’ve got a lot of nerve spending a tiny fraction of my $15 monthly fee to enable America’s greatest living director to achieve his vision. What if I never really like DeNiro unless he’s doing a Focker movie? Please fix.
Braylon: I wish you would quit showing movies by and about black people. And stop stealing all the Oscars from Christian Bale. Fix this or else I will cancel my subscription that I never actually signed up for.
Netflix: Can I put you all on hold for sec? We’re busy spending these sums:
$9 billion on new content in 2017
$12 billion on new content in 2018
$15 billion on new content in 2019
LOVE all of this Sasha.
It’s interesting you bring up Hollywood going the way of Broadway, with new products being based on pre-existing IPs. BUT here on Broadway we have Lincoln Center Theater, Roundabout, MTC, and 2nd Stage. All are non-profit, subscriber based houses. And all are allowed to compete for the Tony Awards. And they often win. And no one throws a fit. Perhaps it’s because they release their grosses along with the rest of the Broadway shows, even though said grosses don’t matter as much to them? Perhaps if Netflix released numbers for their original films, these pearl-clutchers would calm down? Who knows. But like Netflix, they are usually the only places to go on Broadway to experience certain types of theatre: revivals of the big classics that are too expensive to gamble on w/ a commercial production, or staging a niche topic play w/o mega stars (Trust me, a company like LCT is the only place who would dare produce the gargantuan My Fair Lady or King and I w/ full orchestra or let Holland Taylor do a one woman show about Ann Richards). Netflix, similarly, distributes films that lie outside the “event” film that hollywood relies on. It has long been a haven to documentaries and take chances on lesser known directors and artists of color.
So Netflix, maybe a bit more transparency would get these people off your back. Go ahead, release viewer figures and let them know Roma lost just as much money as First Man. Then apparently, you’ll have art worthy of Oscar consideration.
By the way, the Midsommar trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0UWIya-O0s
This looks excellent, but I’m afraid that it will again be too scary for me to watch 🙁 I still couldn’t bring myself to give Hereditary a try.
Henry Darger vibes.
Didn’t know how much I needed a sunny, flowery horror movie.
Can’t wait.
Henry Darger. Holy yikes.
Curious to know what others think. Is it better to watch superhero films on the big screen than to watch classic films like “Citizen Kane”, “Casablanca” and “The Godfather” on the small screen?
I have only seen those films on the small screen yet their great is still so obvious to me and it isn’t diminished one bit by not seeing them on the big screen.
Oh, hell no. Watch casablanca on the big screen, I tell you. Great movies look great on any platform but especially in the theatres. I remember a few years ago I went to a festival where they showed a Peter Greenway retroapective and watched The Belly of An Architect on the big screen. Great experience for such a small film.
I hear movies look better in film than digital. Apparently CGI is bad as they spoil films yet Fincher uses them all the time and my favourite film of his uses so much CGI but I couldn’t tell at all.
To be honest, I am not such a purest. For me, it is always the story, the story, the story.
Yeah, I like watching stuff on movie screens so much, now I regret I can’t also watch my favorite TV shows on them.
Of course it’s better to watch classics and masterpieces on a small screen than dull movies on the big screen (why would it be any other way) but to say that the classics aren’t “diminshed one bit” by not seeing them on the big screen is probably a bit excessive. They’re still incredible experiences and I’m not saying that you haven’t seen a movie before you’ve seen it in theatres but there’s a little more that seeing the films in theatres will achieve that’s incredibly valuable.
ANY movie would look and sound better on a big screen than on a small screen. That’s not a debate. I think you are wrong. It might enhance my appreciation of them (it probably will because it’s a big screen) but not watching them on the big screen definitely wont diminish it, since I have never seen them on a big screen. I am also not on board on theatre experience thing. I prefer to watch when there are not many people there as I enjoy it more when there isn’t a large and noisy crowd. Also, watching it a home makes it more intimate and catch some things you miss while watching in the theatres.
Two things:
1) What kind of crowds do you people see movies with? I’m seeing several people here have disdain for watching movies with an audience so what’s the problem? Are they disrespecting the movie? Too loud? On their phones?
2) The one thing I disagree with you here is the following: “Also, watching it a home makes it more intimate and catch some things you miss while watching in the theatres”
What I’ve come to realize over the previous year (by moving to a city that has a repertory theatre) is that the opposite is true concerning catching things you might otherwise miss. The cinema isn’t just about better image and sound quality, it’s an experience.
For example, as a major David Lynch fan there was always one movie of his that I struggled with (other than Dune), Wild at Heart. To me it was always a mess, too fast for Lynch, bursting with great ideas looking to find a form that are in any way meaningful. But then maybe a few months after seeing the film again on a TV and reacting exactly the same way, I got a chance to see it on the big screen. Suddenly it was everything I had ever hoped it could be: an energetic but deeply emotional story, a beautiful and melancholic road odyssey. I could feel the characters and understand the tone in a completely different way.
Then there is the pure point of the size of the image. I find it quite peculiar to say that you’d notice things you wouldn’t otherwise with a notably smaller image. The movie screen can let your eyes roam, look into different details at the edge of the frame and get more out of it. I very recently for example watched Tsai Ming-liang’s What Time Is It There? on a big screen. It’s a film with very long static shots of almost nothing happening. On a small screen I would have respected it, found its narrative to be interesting and the filmmaking to be strong. But on the big screen it became alive, and purely because I could look around, realize the mastery and care of Tsai’s blocking and production design. The details in that film speak so much, and I simply can’t believe that I could have noticed them on a TV screen.
And also, is home viewing that strongly without distractions either? Of course if you live alone and there isn’t a lot of noise for example from your neighbors, of course it’s mostly peacful. But if you live with people who aren’t watching the movie with you, you have people talking and moving around and doing things and asking you questions and in some cases saying that you have to turn the movie off in a way that I’ve found notably more distracting than anything I’ve ever had to experience in a theatre.
1) I often have the theater all to myself when I go see older movies, and even when I see recent releases, because I go on weekday mornings or early afternoons to avoid the crowds, and I wait a few weeks before seeing the most popular films.
And also, perhaps the strongest argument I can make for the theatrical experience and film:
I’ve seen 2001: A Space Odyssey most likely four times: twice on DVD, once in digital in a theatre, and once in 70mm in a theatre (in this order). Watching it on DVD, it was great, a stunning achievement, one of the greatest pieces of cinema I have ever seen. Watching it in digital: once again, the experience was so much more deeply felt, my focus on the movie was even stronger than it had been before and my respect and adoration of it increased so much. After this screening I was certain it was the best film I had ever seen. Then I watched it for the fourth time, the only notable difference being that I watched it in 70mm. This screening marks the only time that a movie has ever made me physically cry. I was speechless, drained and so distracted for the rest of the night that I was barely functional. I was lucky to make it home and when I woke up the next morning, I realized that I hadn’t even closed the door of my apartment when I came in.
Absolutely! I watched 2001 in a theater too after seeing it many times on TV and it was even more overwhelming than it already was on TV, as if I had never seen the film properly before that. Also last year, I watched a pirate copy of ‘Call Me By Your Name’ several times on my computer or on a big TV before I actually got to see it in a theater in May, and oh boy I noticed so many things that I had not noticed before despite seeing the movie so many times already in just three months, it almost felt like I was watching it for the first time.
Luca’s CMBYN compositions will be studied for years to come.
Remember the first time you saw a 1940s movie restored and remastered on blu-ray?
That upgrade from DVD to Blu is similar to the enhanced visual impact you get from seeing a classic on a screen that’s 60 feet wide.
“Silver Screen” is a vivid term because it’s a unique optical sensation. Reflected light and the crawl of film grain is hard to fully replicate on a backlit TV screen. There’s a shimmer and flicker bouncing off old movies in a theater setting that almost seems to spark different neurons in our heads.
(Though I think since most of us grew up getting our first taste of old movies on CRT TVs, there is something equally comforting and inviting about watching them that way.)
Try to experience it if you ever get a chance to, John, at a museum screening or revival retrospective event.
The audiences that show up for those screenings create their own special vibe, as well. They are there to pay respect, so there’s a reverence you will rarely feel at a new movie.
And if you can see a mid-century movie in a vintage mid-century theater? It’s like a trip that transports you through a portal of a time machine.
Beautifully written and so true, Ryan. To add to your point, I think it’s worth repeating what I’ve posted on AD once before, namely, that it’s invaluable to experience great silent movies on a big screen in a packed house. When I saw “Intolerance” and heard from a full, spellbound audience spontaneous clapping, gasps, sighs and sharply in-drawn oooos, I re-experienced, like the very first time, the primal pull of the well-wrought moving image. I don’t believe that watching on a small screen can replicate that.
I saw Lawrence of Arabia when it was restored on a giant screen. It is supposed to be on IMAX, but I only saw 3 cities listed. I loved Cold War, real vivid.
Spielberg is weaponising the Oscars in the major studio’s war on Netflix. This is really about a Netflix’s business model but I think the likes of Spielberg might be overplaying their hand by using the Oscars as some kind of leverage. It should be about what’s best for audiences and that requires a deep debate about the industry as a whole, not focusing on the amount of theatrical release and changing Oscar rules just for one company. There are legitimate issues about Netflix that needs to be debated, not least its monopoly on content. That requires rational talks rather than jumping on the new guy who dares to challenge the guys at the top.
I cannot understand how “Roma” winning BP would have been a disaster for theatres.
Let me put it this way: Without Oscar buzz “Roma” probably wouldn’t have had little theatrical release. So blocking films like “Roma” from the Oscars would be the actual disaster for theatres as they wouldn’t have been seen in theatres without Oscar buzz. Yes, they should be seen in theatres but push too hard and you might not see them at all.
Off topic but Captain Marvel seems to be getting ok-ish reviews. It’s right now at 68 on Metacritic.
That is the same as “Avengers: infinity War” and it turned out to be one of the highest grossing films of all time. For a Marvel film it’s on the good side ,score wise.
Meh,
The only reason the movie exists is to move her into place for her part in the Endgame resolution.
Brie Larson is a great actor and the supporting cast is excellent. There are many great reviews. Is her wanting lore diversity a problem?
Interesting!
90 from Kenneth Turan at the LATimes
90 from Owen Gleiberman at Variety
88 from Richard Roeper at the Chicago Sun-Times
(okay, there’s a score of 20 from the NY Post by some guy called Johnny Oleksinski — but I’m pretty sure Johnny Oleksinski is a gangster from the 1940s.)
Jazz’s own Captain Marvel review is now posted:
https://www.awardsdaily.com/2019/03/05/review-introducing-the-most-powerful-and-brilliant-captain-marvel/
Traditionally filmmakers had to fight to get their movies made and distributed….that forces them to make movies really good once they get the chance. But with netflix filmmakers are becoming lazy. There is some sort of discipline that develops when you have to fight at every step of film-making. With Netflix you get lazy films like velvet buzzsaw and hold the dark. Filmmakers are doing whatever they want with no results to show for. Spielberg is right and ava duverney as usual is wrong and head strong.
I didn’t find Velvet lazy at all. And Ava’s documentaries are reaching the world. That’s a result she deems worth.
Right, Henrique?
Velvet Buzzsaw was a wild campy ride. It was a lavishly conceived romp.
Hold the Dark had a midpoint climax that was one of the most stunningly choreographed 10-minute set-pieces I’ve seen in years.
Hold the Dark wipes its ass with Vice.
Had no clue about Hold The Dark. just opened a browser tab for Netflix and searched for it. Watched the trailer. It’s now on my list. Thanks Ryan and thank you Netflix!
velvet was a lazy movie where the filmmaker thought he is making something clever but it turned into average movie. Before anyone tries to use vice to rebuff my statement….that movie is nominated for 8 major oscars..end of discussion.
So if Velvet Buzzsaw would somehow get 8 Oscar nominations, it would suddenly make it a great movie?
Fat Batman says: “Does this flop make my butt look big?”
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7e8527901b27457a809ab0a1de7c1069b2691609ee68a949985cf42f53155795.jpg
Anything that has an in built audience isn’t a risk. Currently, Hollywood isn’t about taking risks, which is why filmmakers are taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the likes of Netflix. The fact that it doesn’t play by the same rules kind of makes it a safe ground for great and budding filmmakers.
In the current market filmmakers either need to make a great superhero and use that goodwill to make mid budget genre movies and then use that to make prestige movies. If not, try making micro budget movies that win indie spirit and then use that goodwill to make midbudget genre movies and then make prestige films. There is always a way for cream of the crop to raise.
Brayon: “ava duverney as usual is wrong and head strong.”
Narrator: “psst, when Braylon says DuVernay is headstrong he means he thinks she’s ‘uppity.’ “
Right. Because Hollywood studios never make a bad movie. (Except for 250,000 stinkers in the past 100 years.)
There were 300 “traditional” movies eligible for the Oscars last year.
I hope you have to watch all of them, Braylon.
In hell.
take it easy ryan…you are acting like a bigger troll than you accuse me of .
There has never been a bigger troll than you in the history of trolling.
Netflix lazy? So why do I find “The Bodyguard” thrilling. Private Life, Ballad of Buster Scruggs, and Icarus are excellent.
Bodyguard is a BBC show, Netflix is just showing it outside the UK.
Two thoughts regarding Netflix…
1. I completely understand why Ava DuVernay partners with Netflix; the reach is unparalleled. However, from this high school teacher’s perspective, Netflix owning distribution rights to films is incredibly frustrating. It is illegal for me to show my students any film through Netflix at school. I think more than 10 or so people is considered an illegal “screening” or something (it’s all there in the fine print). Even if Netflix made an exception for educational purposes, which it did for Ava’s documentary “13th”, I STILL can’t show the film to my U.S. History students because the school district has blocked Netflix on school issued computers and WiFi (as most districts have done). I want to make “13th” an integral part of my African American Reforms unit, and now that’s impossible because I can’t get a DVD of the film. This goes for any and all Netflix Original films. It’s maddening.
2. The only thing I consider “holy” about the cinematic experience is the dark quiet of the the theater. The big screen with no distractions. I don’t like seeing films with a crowd. I don’t buy concessions. I prefer seeing matinee or late night screenings, when there are minimal crowd distractions. This is why I still go to so many movies at the theater. If these high quality films were available instantaneously at home, and I had the money for a legit home theater, then I would probably stop going to the movie theater. Alas, that will never happen with my salary. So I will continue to support the movie theater industry and help keep “cinema” alive.
School systems have blocked Youtube too.
Yes. Our district has so many filters on YouTube that it’s basically useless as an educational tool. So ridiculous and frustrating.
Netflix has made 13th available for screenings to classrooms.
GRANT OF PERMISSION FOR EDUCATIONAL SCREENINGS
https://media.netflix.com/en/only-on-netflix/78922
There are about 30 Netflix documentaries that are available for screenings in schools
https://molloy.libguides.com/streaming/netflix
Apologies if I wasn’t clear in my original post. Even though Netflix has granted permission for the film to be shown in schools for educational purposes, my school district has completely blocked Netflix on all school issued laptops and WiFi. There are no DVDs of the film. I literally can’t access it at school to show my students. I appreciate what Netflix has done, but the majority of school districts have blocked Netflix completely, which renders any media permissions useless.
You were clear. My fault for not reading more carefully.
I was hoping that you could show the Netflix offer and stipulations to your school district and they might relent an allow access for these special documentaries.
But I missed seeing in your original comment that you already knew about the Netflix exceptions — or that it didn’t matter because your school board has a strict hard-line policy.
It’s a shame that so many district school administrations can’t find a way to allow students and teachers to avail themselves of the Netflix accommodation.
From my outside of America perspective, what Netflix is doing is by far more beneficial. I would never have seen Roma at the cinema due to how distribution for these films only goes to Melbourne, Sydney, and maybe Brisbane, and would have had to wait months for a belated DVD release. But I could watch it, just as the rest of the world could, on Netflix, at home. It’s a decidedly egalitarian future.
And besides – the cinema experience has long been overrated as a filmic institution. The scam-priced snacks, the poor image quality, the noisy crowds. Watching Roma, I could put on headphones tuned for optimum audio, watch it in 4K, have my own food, and focus on the movie at hand.
The state of cinema as a whole – where large portions of box office money only go to a select few franchises while niche films decline in distribution and popularity – is not great. One need only look at how the Oscar nominations last year were awkwardly divided between populist crossover hits, films heavily inspired by proven “Awards-bait” formulae, and a couple of arthouse gems that had to get in through sheer starpower behind or in front of the camera.
Spielberg is watching a shift in the status quo of film history as intense as those Jaws made. He has a chance to turn around and acknowledge the shifting tides rather than a Caligula-esque battle against them. For his path is one where the Academy only grows more insular from the world around them.
Maybe they should just release any worthy NETFLIX film in theatres for 2-4 weeks before putting it on the streaming site… It’s a simple enough solution and 90% of people would end up waiting for it anyways… AMAZON productions always has a standard release and then once the film’s “on home video” it’s added to their streaming service too.
Yes.
Scorsese is making a strong push for The Irishman to get a good release in cinemas, but I hope Netflix will do the same for its other films this year, less prominent films like The King, for example. Not that anybody listens to what a 23-year-old says, but Chalamet has said that he is really keen for his fans to watch his films on a big screen, in a theatre. I suspect Netflix is keen for them to subscribe to Netflix.
Exactly just release most hyped films on the big screen at the sane time as it live stream platform it as simple as that then and ONLY when Netflix which has no excuse can afford which they surely can do a moderate size wide release so traditional cinemagor base can engage alongside online steaming . THAT the ONLY circumstance and prerequisite I accept before Netflix is. Viable in lot of peoples eyes as legit Oscar contenders. Least of all myself.
Netflix is releasing, the Boy Who harnessed simultaneously in movies & Netflix. This is a good idea. It’s in my neighborhood theater, but if I don’t see it in the next week – it’s gone.
Sasha. Spielberg is right to do what the academy are gutless to do put up the force of resistance and stand up for future of big screen cinema film experience. You are certainly wrong and I stunned hear what I think? You imply Spielberg is ” old school” filmmaking.
But that a oversimplification. Fact is Spielberg consistent brilliant form and his ability to evolve means he pushed his share of orthodox vs. Unorthodox filmmaking …just cos it confined on the big screen does not mean big screen cinema experience out of date.
Your wrong criticise Spielberg’s ” movement” cos unlike lot of other filmmakers from his first decade as filmmaker he keeps pushing the envelope in the fusion. Of tradition and modern filmmaking and “minority report” in same year he released” catch me if you can” highlighted both his mass appeal popularity and very high praise for contrasting styles of filmmaking.
Fact is Spielberg is a chameleon and goes from progressive big screen films techniques to traditional and a hybrid of both in the process. He continues rightfully push potential of big screen filmmaking and it up to Oscars organisation show string leadership and develop stronger sense of clarity over other ways re engage with what the public likes..
.Sasha confirms what I long said though: effectively it not netflix fault but they do need to take heed the lessons of academy rejecting their film win best picture. It academy’s fault Netflix has become a player in Oscars. As sasha points out they failure to embrace films connect public engagement to big screen film experience seen the academy exposed to the invading force. Had academy years ago embraced the culturally publicly relevant – critically acclaimed films would we be even having this debate? Doubtful. At least we wouldn’t for another decade.
What angers me with the academy ” insular” divisive ( self inflicted I may add) culture with the war of progressives vs. Conservatives is that I’m post rotk Oscar win Oscar learnt nothing from it they turned their backs discouraging as Sasha says: ” stories that push the boundary on creative grounds “. Oscar supposed lead by example as they used to not become followers of on line trends cos they drowned out in a form of beaurocratic connected outrage at the trump- Obama flashpoint eras. This has killed off academy’s once decade ago or longer more consistent. Precise judgement embracing that cultural big screen – critically acclaimed balance .
Now academy negligence half baked principles have left them exposed to pitting big screen industry against cyberspace steaming services.
It extraordinary showing of incompetence and gross negligence. Spielberg to his credit is merely showing way how take a stand for ever challenged big screen film ndustry that was Sasha’s biggest mistake dub Spielberg as standing for the past.
But it not supposed be Spielberg who advocate for film industry . that supposed be academy job right ?
If Netflix able to successfully get best picture films contending more winning at Oscars that OK ONLY if they operate a more publicly engaging model where most pple do still go to cineplex: big screen audiences …if Netflix don’t do that the academy have chance to heed Spielberg’s justified rallying cry. After all he only one showing how academy should behave.
He needs to promote independent movies for a change.
Balance is key balance u right Spielberg should
So is Spielberg going to be funding and promoting quality independent movies?
I see most everyone getting sidetracked into a Spielberg vs Netflix debate. I see the entire issue differently. This is really about the Motion Picture Academy vs the Television Academy.
1. What is Spielberg really attempting (and failing) to say?: “Steven feels strongly about the difference between the streaming and theatrical situation,” a spokesperson for Spielberg’s production company, Amblin Entertainment, said last week. Spielberg has cited the ‘cinema experience’, giant screens, big sound, watching with strangers, etc – but he really doesn’t get to the heart of the issue (see #3 below). He makes valid points for some people and for others it’s hogwash. Spielberg talks ‘around’ the real issue instead of directly facing it.
2. Why is Netflix reframing Spielberg’s argument? The Netflix response to Spielberg: “We love cinema. Here are some things we also love:
-Access for people who can’t always afford, or live in towns without, theaters
-Letting everyone, everywhere enjoy releases at the same time
-Giving filmmakers more ways to share art
These things are not mutually exclusive.”
I mostly agree with Netflix’s statement. They’ve done great things for access and for certain filmmakers. Their response is marketing at its best: reframe the debate to be about access and pure filmmaking, while saying they love cinema although they’re really a great streaming company and they don’t own a chain of cinemas. They also don’t mention that this debate is really about winning Oscars, not about access.
3. Who is Bill Mechanic and why are his words more relevant to this debate? From today’s LA Times: “The academy is not set up for non-theatrical features,” producer and former studio executive Bill Mechanic, who previously served on the academy’s board of governors, told The LA Times on Monday. “The work the streaming services is doing is great; it’s a high point of television. But it’s not a high point of movies. That theatrical difference is what makes the Oscars unique. If you take away that categorization, there is no difference between the Oscars and the Emmys.”
I think the major underlying question is this: What actually IS the difference between the Oscars and the Emmys, and what SHOULD it be going forward? This debate IS NOT really about access, and it IS NOT really about the theatre experience. This debate IS about DEFINING THE DIFFERENCE between the Motion Picture Academy and the Television Academy. Should films be allowed to compete for both an Oscar AND an Emmy? Once that question is addressed, most other questions will fall into place. If yes, any further discussion is mute. Otherwise, there will simply have to be a dividing line placed somewhere – cinema screen release (theatre) vs personal screen release (television/internet) being the most obvious partition – which is what I think Spielberg might have been trying to say. However, that raises a further underlying question that’s at the heart of the matter: which of these options will strengthen or dilute each academy? Yes, this debate is really about the difference between the two academies. They each care about their ‘brand’ more than anything else. My opinion is that a ‘yes’ answer (that films should be allowed to compete for both an Oscar AND Emmy) will dilute the Motion Picture Academy and strengthen the Television Academy by giving it more clout. The Emmys are huge, but still smaller compared to the Oscars. I don’t think the Television Academy will want to join with AMPAS to create joint rules about which films can be nominated within each of their academies. Nor will they merge into one academy. AMPAS will most likely need create their own rules and make their own dividing line to separate themselves from the Television Academy. Again, the REAL QUESTION at issue in this debate is this: exactly where should the dividing line between the two academies be located?
Movies are released on different platforms….3D seems to be dying, but IMAX is alive and well. Those experiences and options are vital to movie viewing.
Netflix is not Television either. I don’t need any TV for it. Like I don’t need a TV for YouTube. Or Amazon. For years I’ve used only my iPad and then, later, my portable pc. I don’t need to be at home to watch anything on Netflix. This is Old Hollywood vs. Streaming. You make pretty good points though!
side note: I live in a remote island with 4 movie screens (total). The Favourite didn’t even premiere here. Or Cold War. The latter is and has been on Amazon Prime for months.
So just a question to ponder about Speilberg’s proposal: if the proposed changes were to go through (90 days, 30 days, whatever it ends up being – I assume 90 is a first offer) does that mean it must be released for that amount of time within the calendar year – so also eliminating token releases on Christmas day before films go wide several weeks later from Oscar contention? Because especially with the Oscars moving up to early Feb (if I’m not mistaken they are still doing that) a film could legitimately be released 25 December play until Oscar nominations (or even the Oscars) and still not have 90 days under it’s belt so it could cause a complicated situation where they could then cut the theatrical window short having already won it’s Oscars. Maybe someone has thought of this already but I’m just wondering?
In some ways I’d be totally behind it being a calendar year thing because it would force them to let people other than festivals and voting members see films before the nominations but it would come with all sorts of issues too…
90 days would be a no-compromise first offer since the theatrical window is already 12-14 weeks, right?
They should put this issue to a vote for the whole Academy to decide.
And anyone who votes that all movies have to be seen in theaters will never get a DVD FYC screener for the rest of their lives.
(I am available to negotiate that deal if the AMPAS wants to fly me out to LA to explain this option to each voter face to face, one on one.)
I love that Spielberg thinks Netflix is destroying cinema and not the fact that mega-blockbusters (ie his films) make it harder for young, independent cinema to get an audience.
I remember Marty made After Hours after Last Temptation’s initial funding collapsed because he wanted to prove to himself he could work fast and inexpensive again like he did when he first started in the industry. Spielberg would faceplant if he tried to make a move that way now.
Every year, Oscar Night begins for me with all the intriguing sexy promise of the opening adventure in After Hours.
And then… well, you know. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ee5a66873a96327b2da20d3170a5c4e5f508b186455197a5c61a2936f33d8f20.gif
I never doubt Speilberg’s mastery of the blockbuster (I don’t know if anyone really can come close to the classic’s he has crafted) BUT agreed… he would not know what to do with a small budget (although saying that he could call in more favors than pretty much everyone on the planet).
His pointing the finger at Netflix/streaming is definitely misplaced. A single movie ticket costs more than a month of Netflix… and somehow they can’t figure out why numbers are on the decline…
The old guard Spielberg types see REVENUE is technically up (largely because of insanely front loaded superhero movies coming out every month) but fail to notice there are actually fewer butts in the seats watching them because of spiraling admission and concession costs. Hollywood is both slavishly imitative AND slow to react to changes. So what the hell happens when the bottom drops out of superhero movies like they did for YA movies where children murder one another or multi part Fantasy epics or Hip Ironic Kevin Williamson slasher films, etc. Things start to bomb and there’s nothing they can do because they’ve plowed too much cash into their pipeline of similar projects.
None of that will be Netflix’s fault. Frankly if Spielberg’s studio system actually tried to further the cause of art, all of his meely mouthed protests about “cinema” would seem less cynical.
Team Spielberg.
What the reflexive Netflix followers seem to ignore is that TV movies have existed since the 1960s and Home Video since the Mid-70s! They act as if Netflix was the first time you could watch a “movie” at home. Cable movies since the 80s. And, they weren’t the first to stream, either. Nobody complained at CBS, PBS, BBC, Vestron Video, HBO etc. that they were being rooked out of Oscar consideration because their movies were released to the small screen.
And, keep in mind that the rule allowing day and date with streaming for Oscar consideration has only existed since 2012. It’s not set in stone. It could be reversed easily, and just add in a more reasonable window (like 30 days; as opposed to the proposed 90 day one).
The one point that Netflix has made recently that has some merit is making movies available to folks in smaller cities at the same time as bigger ones. But, that’s the marketplace at work, too. IF there were a demand for some of the smaller arthouse flicks that get limited releases in smaller cities – the studios would release them there, too. But, you ain’t getting a crowd for SHOPLIFTERS or NEVER LOOK AWAY in Boise. Trust me, if CAPERNAUM could earn millions in Toledo – it would get released there. They ain’t looking to throw away money. And, even granting some measure to Netflix’ argument — what’s the big deal about waiting a month or so before getting a chance to see a movie via streaming that you wouldn’t pay $10 for anyway?
And, conversely, the Academy is acting like DVDs have not existed before Netflix, and Oscar-nominated films getting DVD releases didn’t bother anyone.
This whole debate is basically about the length of the theatrical exclusivity window. Which is a lot more meaningless than the amount of effort put into it.
The Academy (and Spielberg) are acting like DVDS didn’t exist? How? Where? When? Cite a quote, please. It has ALWAYS been expressly prohibited (and continues to be) that a movie released straight to DVD (or VHS beforehand) without a Theatrical release was ineligible for Oscar consideration.
Further. Show me even one example of an Oscar nominated feature film (non Doc/Animated/Foreign) that was released on DVD/VHS less than month after it came out in theaters. Just one.
What I mean is, nobody had a problem with a film getting a theatrical release, later a DVD release, and being considered for the Oscars.
But now everybody is having a problem with a film getting a theatrical release, later a streaming release, and being considered for the Oscars.
The whole debate is about how long should a film only be watchable in theaters.
Nobody has said otherwise. And, I repeat my challenge: show me an example of a day & date (or even 30 days later) example of an Oscar nominated picture that went to VHS or DVD within a month of initial theatrical release.
But that is completely beside the point. Why is one month the magic number? Why not two months? Two weeks? One year?
Is it really that important how long the theatrical exclusivity window is? Is this really what’s going to save or ruin cinema?
Hardly.
Day and date releases in theaters are not economically viable. It’s very hard for theaters to compete with what is essentially a free movie at home. The fake theatrical releases they’re being given now are smokescreens and they aren’t releasing the numbers because they’re so low as to be embarrassing. If they become the norm it is going to be a very big blow to theaters as a business.
Here’s one number that WAS released: BEASTS OF NO NATION – Total Gross $90,000. That made it the 399th “Highest grossing” movie of 2015.
It was such a humiliatingly low number, that Netflix never released grosses again.
Yes, Netfiix must be so embarrassed.
We all recall how humiliated Idris Elba looked that night.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1caaa0edf25beedd033ea7970f769027b519088c81e133d5dfeb005a19ae6bbe.jpg
And, that has to do with releasing grosses, how? Very clever dodge. Very clever. But, oh so transparent – UNLIKE Netflix’ box office numbers!!!
Remind us how releasing grosses has fuck-all to do with any movie’s value.
This site is not BoxOfficeDaily.
Uh, I was replying to a comment, Monsieur Moderator.
that movie was the very reason I subscribed to Netflix. how terrible for them! new subscribers with the 399th highest grossing movie of 2015. oh and by the way one of the best movies of that year, period.
to be honest I rather pay for their subscription then to ever set foot in a movie theater again. with a 65″ 4K TV and DTS Atmos sound all around, my experience is already considerably better anyway.
That’s fine. Home viewing, uncut, of movies has been available since the 1970s. You are entitled to wait to see ’em at home. But, if you want to qualify for an Oscar, you have to play by whatever eligibility rules that are set up. And, I’m sure Netflix will comply if new rules are set.
<3 Henrique
That’s the argument that Spielberg and I are making. If you want to compete for an Oscar, your movie should be aimed primarily at being a theatrical experience. As I have shown, movies made for the small screen have existed for 50 years. Just because Netflix has deep pockets doesn’t make their ‘case’ any more valid. The Academy erred when they changed the rules 5 or 6 years back and allowed Day and Date. Let’s see how this battle plays out.
Team Spielberg.
I mean the streaming services could probably get together and create their own awards show… I bet the Emmys would be pretty bummed about that.
It’s also only in NY or LA, right? Because when and where people outside the film industry get to see the film is irrelevant?
That’s a pretty narrow stance for a fairly populist filmmaker.
right on!
Black Panther was six weeks if I recall correctly.
Try 12 Weeks! You ain’t getting away with that President like Fake News here, buddy! Theaters: Feb. 15. DVD: May 15
Kindly back off on the Trump comparisons, boy-o. I said “if I recall correctly”. Obviously I didn’t recall correctly. I could swear a major blockbuster last year had an incredibly short window.
Tongue in cheek. We know each other. Just joking around.
But, yes, BLACK PANTHER would have qualified under Spielberg’s rule proposal.
Ok…sorry…I do like using “boy-o”
Fargo never had a particularly wide release and had been on video at least four months before it was nominated though.
A. Spielberg (or I) aren’t talking about taking away eligibility if a movie is on home video AFTER it’s had it’s run in theaters. Nobody. That’s a straw man argument. B. Fargo still did pretty well, playing in over 700 theaters at one point and grossing $50M adjusted. And, it’s first VHS release date was a full SEVEN Months after theatrical. Well within the Spielberg time frame.
I still maintain that Netflix will simply purchase some second hand theaters in LA and NY to work around Spielberg’s demands and then we’ll see where the goalposts get moved next.
this is actually a pretty good idea
I accept your challenge, sir!
Steve Jobs was in theaters about a month before the studio noticed that nobody was buying tickets, so it was scaled back to 50 of those famous “select theaters” and then quietly disappeared off screens in its 8th week, maybe 9th.
Then it got Oscar nominations for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress.
Still more than thirty days before it hit the home front. It was almost a full Four months before DVD.
i see what you mean. it’s extra fun that we all had to wait 4 months to see it.
But this is nitpicking – who benefits from that rule? Not audiences, just theater owners. Or am I missing something? (Serious question)
Let’s pose a theoretical situation: a movie gets released and makes absolutely no money. As a result within three weeks the film leaves all theatres as no theatre wants to book it for another week. If at this point the film would go to Netflix, would that be in violation of your principles of what a movie should do in terms of distribution and thus should it be Oscar ineligible in your opinion? The film isn’t losing any money made from theatrical by going to Netflix and no one is harmed. Should a film like this be forced to do several months of “negative time” where absolutely no one can watch the film before it’s considered to be enough of a movie to be Oscar eligible? Or is its short theatrical window defining it so that the release couldn’t ever become a movie because it doesn’t spend enough time in theatres?
again, every dvd screener in the history of dvd screeners, ever.
Spielberg, nor I, are talking about Awards season screeners. We’re talking about the main release of a movie. Straw man.
wrong. you’re talking about eligibility for Oscars consideration.
either they ban screeners and any studio film that sends one out is banned if they don’t comply, or your point is moot.
Screeners have NOTHING to do with eligiblity – and NEVER have
ok I have to. I just have to.
L – O – L
No. You just have to read the Oscar rules. It’s on their website. You can laugh all you want, but, you’d still be incorrct. And, while you’re self-amused, read the history of the rules.
The rules are right there on the Oscars website. Says nothing about screeners making a film ineligible. You may laugh while reading them, but, that’s the rules. Straw man arguments ARE amusing…but, they don’t make your straw man any more cogent to the conversation.
Silence of the Lambs had been on video for MONTHS before it was even nominated for instance
But, it was in theaters for MONTHS and MONTHS before that. Again, a straw man argument.
“But now everybody is having a problem with a film getting a theatrical release, later a streaming release, and being considered for the Oscars.”
No, that’s actually exactly what they’re trying to get Netflix to do. What they have a problem with is what Netflix is doing now, which giving their movies a token theatrical release and putting it on the streaming platform the exact same day with no window in between.
Except they didn’t do that with Roma or Buster Scruggs. Those had theatrical releases according to Academy rules. That wasn’t same day VOD stuff.
And it’s not a coincidence that those are the ones the Academy felt any need to give nominations to. Everything else they’ve ever done has been day and date.
I believe, in the case of Roma, there was a two week window.
Nevertheless, the business will do what it does. No Oscar rule can change that. Netflix films are happening and will continue to happen whether they’re eligible for the Oscars or not. The question is whether the Oscars can be flexible enough to keep up with the business, or will they once again become a bit more irrelevant. (As, I believe, disqualifying any film makes them a bit more irrelevant.)
Well imagine if they do change the rules, Netflix refuses to comply, but talented filmmakers continue to flock to Netflix.
Either the Emmys pick up the slack (if Netflix campaigns its films accordingly, which i doubt), or more and more acclaimed / popular films exist outside Oscar eligibility and they simply lose relevance to the next generation of film lovers.
every single screener ever.
Well really it just benefits theatres at the end of the day, right?
Does Spielberg have a stake in a line of theatres? Or is he just being nostalgic for the way he first experienced films?
Home Entertainment systems will continue to evolve to the point where theatres probably will be the exception to the rule because, magical as can be, they’re also more expensive, less convenient, & offer less content – especially if you live outside of a cultural hub, where there just isn’t the infrastructure / demand to invest in more than a mainstream theatre (if at all). Also – depending on where you live – the theatre experience is not necessarily all that magical.
I mean, sure, I’ve seen Tokyo Story and 2001 and Jurassic Park on the big screen and all were phenomenal experiences, but I’ve also seen them all on TV or Tablet, and they were still great. The fact is, I get to see WAY more films on TV / Tablet than in the theatre. It’s just not worth it to deny the one for the other.
I just don’t think that “TV movies have been shunned for decades” is a good enough reason to keep shunning “TV movies”
Exactly. Both formats have evolved. The “TV movie” category at the Emmys seems archaic.
Level the playing field and include all feature length content for Oscar consideration, and serialised content for the Emmys.
I guess – for me – the difference is simply in the storytelling format, but the Oscars were created by the studio system to celebrate the studio system, like the Emmys were created by the TV networks, to celebrate the TV networks.
Times have changed though, and evolving distribution models have made it easier for audiences to connect with content – and content creators outside of the studio / network system. For me, it makes more sense for studios and networks to play along rather than push back, but obviously it’s not up to me.
(The Emmys have been faster and looser with adapting to the change, and it’s only been good for the TV industry – if the best content is on streaming services, then let’s follow it)
I agree with every single thing you say here
I love seeing movies in the theatre. It’s a way better experience than watching it home. All I want from Netflix is to give us movie-goers a chance to watch their movies on the big screen, like they did with Roma. I would’ve loved to have seen Mudbound in the theatre.
And I love seeing the box office every Monday afternoon.
I definitely don’t want to get into a debate this time around, so I’ll just leave it at that.
I mean, yeah I find it odd that this argument had gotten big after Roma – a film that was released theatrically around the world… Even here in a tiny country nobody cares about (New Zealand) in our 3rd and 4th and 5th largest cities Roma for released theatrically… If they were doing this with all their films (or at least the high profile and prestige films) so that we could see them theatrically I would see no reason why anyone should complain.
But not getting to see films on a nice screen does kinda suck!
The theatrical release they did give Roma was a good gesture and I think it’s why the film got as far as it did with the Academy. But the writing is still sort of on the wall, between their refusal to release box office numbers and the extent they needed to be pushed to give the movie even the tiny window they gave it makes it clear that they have nothing but contempt for theatrical distribution and that they have no intention of making it part of their business long term.
“Contempt”? Seriously?
MJS, You probably do many things in your life that work best for you.
Whenever other people don’t do things the same way you do, do you feel “contempt” for those people?
I can’t understand why you would assign such hateful attitude to anyone else?
Is there anything Netflix has done that makes you think they wish theaters all around the world would be torn down.
They simply chose to make the content they own available to their subscribers in a unique way.
They’ve been doing this for years. No studios have been forced out of business due to what Netflix does. No billionaire movie moguls are going bankrupt because of Netflix. No theaters are shutting down.
If I sense any contempt, it’s unreasonable contempt toward Netflix — no contempt from Netflix at all.
Try to have a less brutal and angry outlook, can you please?
Well, to be fair, no one would be attacking Netflix if they weren’t at least *concerned* about losing money.
Netflix have left themselves open to criticism by their stubborn refusal to open up at acceptable level of big screen cinemas and isolate the silent majority who still go to cinemas. Netflix are on verge of giving themselves avoidable complex problems..there no need or urgency still no case for netflix movie to be best picture Oscar contender unless there is ample evidence Hollywood swings behind netflic over the traditional film industry overwhelmingly and no less. That not likely to happen. Be assured a incredibly respected figure of Spielberg’s stature is far far from a lone voice. The only acception that majority film goers who vote at Oscars should accept neyflix bid for Oscars if they open up on more cinemas in theatres than they ever have before which is hardly any.
Frankly If I were Netflix I concentrate on reducing the rip off prices for their service , leave big screen industry still dominant alone and focus improving online customer base experience I mean what justification do Netflix have to expand to the academy ? Just doesn’t add up
Netflix filled a void they clearly saw coming when physical media sales began to crater about a decade ago.
I mean, we all love our blurays and deluxe multi-disc editions.
And I treasure my mini-wall of Criterions and other beauties (UK Masters of Cinema!)
But Congress has refused to fund my proposal for a $5 billion extension to my Wall of Blu
And my landlord wont let me build a new wing onto my apartment.
I’m sure it makes Spielberg’s bankers sad that he sells fewer box sets than he used to.
Fun while it lasted.
brb
I have to go start a GoFundMe for the Criterion Complete Bergman.
I still think the streaming services should make a potent point by removing Spielberg’s films from their platforms.
I love theaters too, Rodrigo.
I wish all theaters for everyone were ideal movie cathedrals. They’re not though.
My town is getting a brand new multiplex grand opening in about 6 weeks. Maybe I’ll be happier then.
Meanwhile, this is Spielberg’s theater experience:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d7e9717e62d2d0e0d4a3c1b2d3c1492e1df56bef8e4c8d7ebfb307d5fdb85035.jpg
… and this is my theater experience: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fe11723d5f7f2aff6809e53c249687245b421ebf2d34412c84428a7e9b7a4efd.jpg
This has been one of the most exhausting debates I’ve ever made myself a part of. And by a part of I mean Twitting. No matter what you say here comes the other side. Ferocious. The adamantine stance which seems to rule everything lately is definitely strong with this debate. I wonder: does the mainstream care? Or is it as with all things Oscar-related just us? At this point I give up; there is no give apparently. Should be interesting to see how this resolves itself. It’s about all the effort I’m willing to expend at this point.
I wish I had your energy JimG.
The one good thing about Netflix is the lack of emphasis on numbers (box office or ratings) for each program. It’s very liberating and relaxing to not have films and shows be constantly judged and compared to each other based on how many viewers they attract, but simply based on how good and enjoyable they are to those viewers who do appreciate them.
The point that makes everything else irrelevant in the argument is that a less heterogeneous film industry makes for less heterogeneous films. More people making more films in different places for different audiences is unequivocally good for us consumers/fans. I’ve read nothing more germane that this in any discussion. And as I said before, it’s unlikely any classical studio would have funded Roma so generously.
The non-‘classical studio’ Netflix didn’t fund, ROMA, either.
It was independently financed by Participant media. Just like hundreds of films before (and, then distributed via a ‘classical studio’). Netflix didn’t discover something new here.
To each medium its own ceremony, it’s THAT simple!
If it’s in theaters, it goes to the Oscars.
If it’s on TV, it goes to the Emmys.
If it’s on the Internet, it goes to the… Webbies?
More prizes for more people, everybody wins!
Roma was in theaters but Stevie doesn’t think that was enough.
Well, Netflix blurs the lines. They put their films in theaters as little as needed to become eligible, spend a fortune on campaigning, but all they really care about is subscriptions to their streaming service, which is why they better stick to the internet and leave the Oscars alone.
So a business is concerned with making money? How scandalous.
Disney is a matter of months away from launching their own streaming service (which is why Disney product has been getting systemically removed from Netflix AND Amazon). Ya think if Disney decided to goose their subscription model with a Roma style gambit they wouldn’t? And if they did, Stevie would stay dead freaking quiet about it.
This is exactly the point. It is an Oscar issue rather than an industry issue.
God. Ok.
1. Since Netflix isn’t a “studio” under jurisdiction by previous vertical integration court cases, literally NOTHING stops them from purchasing 1 theater in LA and 1 in NY to set up special “Spielberg screenings” for their Oscar films to get around Steve’s attempt to ban them. Then how will he move the goalposts? Minimum theater count? Expanding past the NY/LA rule?
2. Spielberg’s 90 day minimum has an unintended consequence, namely no Oscar eligible film could open past the first week of October. Assuming nominations are still in January and the ceremony in February, that ensures that the overwhelming majority of Oscar contending films will already be out of the theater by then (to be honest, even blockbuster hits are on DVD/Blu-Ray about six to nine weeks after they premiere), negating the supposed financial impact being Oscar’d up brings, supposedly the purpose of the award.
3. You sort of touch on this issue, but I also suspect that Steve wants to monkey with the rules so small indie films that get barely released will get caught up in this banning dragnet as well. Oscar loathes outsiders as much as they claim to loath Netflix. I remember Boyhood’s non-major studio origins rankled more than a few people back in the day.
4. Sean Baker’s idea is actually a pretty clever one, and why would the exhibitors object, they’d still be getting paid.
5. Since the small screen is what vexes Steve so, then I assume he’ll be calling for a full ban on DVD or streaming screeners with a requirement that voting members MUST see each nominated film in the theaters only?
Thank you, Pete.
I’ll just leave this here. An observation by Dave Kehr, film curator of the Musuem of Modern Art.
https://twitter.com/dave_kehr/status/1101935721886167040?s=19
GREAT response. Yes, to put it politely it is ironic that Spielberg is advocating for the protection of a business model that he imposed on the previous one.
Robert Altman in that Easy Riders/Raging Bulls book pointed out (correctly) that the Spielberg model effectively ended the distribution of non-mainstream films for a generation until the Tarantino crowd surfaced.
Spielberg is proposing a four week window, not a 90 day window. And I suspect there will be exemptions for documentaries and foreign films, in fact it’s entirely possible that this will only apply to the Best Picture category.
I’ve seen a 90 day window suggested from his camp as well
The 90 day window is the industry standard for the window between theatrical release and DVD release. It just means Netflix would just need to sign such a contract with the AMCs and Regals of the world like Amazon has. It does not mean the movie couldn’t then be released later in the year like everything else.
I’ve seen a 90 day window suggested from his camp as well
Spielberg makes the point that Netflix should be contending at the Emmys under TV Movie. That’s fine and all but I’ve never quite understood how there isn’t a crossover award between Emmys and Oscars the same way that Grammy’s are won by Broadway musicals. Oscar for Best TV Movie? Or how about let any movie compete for Best Picture? Paul’s jab at music videos being viable at that notion isn’t far-fetched in my opinion either. Years ago I saw countless critics put Beyonce’s Lemonade in their end-of-year top tens. Food for thought.
Yeah… but not. If we don’t draw lines, everything becomes a mess.
The biggest culprit here is ava duvernay….who the hell she thinks she is….she made 2 movies and one of them is unwatchable garbage and she has the gal to speak up. Let her work do the talking.
Her point about streaming sites giving indie or non-mainstream filmmakers an option to compete is a valid one, and the fact that you personally don’t like her films doesn’t negate that.
Stupidity doesn’t always have to be advertised. You can keep it to yourself sometimes.
Well, this is actually true: DuVernay hasn’t made anything particularly interesting so far so her stance isn’t particularly interesting either.
Spielberg is the only person worth listening here for.
Look, I have Netflix, Netflix is OK but they aren’t ‘cinema lovers’, they do movies for money and don’t give a shit about cinema experience.
Netflix is television, not cinema, and should be treated as such.
Braylon’s daily performance as ill-informed jackass.
Ava DuVernay has directed 6 films and 2 of them were nominated for Oscars.
When she was trying to get a foothold she paid for her films entirely out of her own pocket, putting her own family’s finances on the line in the hope that she could someday make a name for herself in an industry that seemed to have no place for her.
That was just 7 years ago.
Now she’s twice Oscar nominated. By dint of her own genius, ambition, and industry savvy.
Now she runs a film and television empire of her very own with vast reach and influence.
3 months ago she signed a $100 million deal with Warner Brothers.
why sign a deal with warner brothers when she is going to loose their money like she did for disney with wrinkle in time. She is a very good TV director. Even selma looked like a TV movie. She should stick to television.
Silence and Hugo both lost a ton of money, so by your logic Scorcese is a lousy director who shouldn’t be taken seriously either and should be banished to TV.
I will never understand why Selma engenders such reflexively hostile reactions whenever its mentioned here. Or is that I DO understand why that is and just hate that this attitude still exists.
Scorsese has a long career to sustain few flops. But Ava duverney is the female equivalent of spike lee but without do the right thing. She just started making movies and she is acting as if she is in the industry or 50 years. If she did make 6 movies then most of them are documentaries or tv movies and 2 are worth critiquing.
So, black filmmakers need to shut up until given permission from white folks like you?
Whatever. Going to block you, certainly would encourage the esteemed site monitors to do the same.
so i speak the truth and you dont like it ?
You are aware that “Vice” lost money despite having major names in directing, starring, and producing it, right? It was even a heavy awards season contender but still flopped.
i did not flop…it made its money back jackass. 8 oscar nominations is a very huge reward. A name in the history books is highly valuable. A quiet place will become a generic horror movie and no one will remeber after 2 yrs. But up and coming filmmakers will take notes while watching vice and be inspired and the movie will influence future filmmakers. Wrinkle in time will inspire people to kill themselves. Moreover having the balls to take on a movie about dick cheney and breaking even was possible because of the big names involved. Ask ava duverney to make a movie about bill cosby without making it sad and depressing. No big name in hollywood could have made vice anymore successful financially and critically as mckay did. 8 oscar nominations for vice is much more worthy than whatever crap ava duverney is going to do for the rest of her whining mediocre career. What is she going to do next ? a movie about first black security guard ?
10 Oscar nominations for Roma was a huge deal too, yet here we are trying to figure out how to prevent that from happening again?
Vice sucked, sorry but it did, that’s why it only won for makeup.
Lol…do you really think it would have gotten 8 nominations if it sucked. It was not just popular with the academy. It was popular with all the awards guilds and bafta and globes. Bafta gave it one of the big honors in film editing. It was second in line to win film editing. Had bryan singer not been fired from the other movie, vice would have won that too.
Even Insider or collateral didn’t win any oscar. Does that mean they suck ? gangs of new york went home empty handed. Did that suck ? Making 66+ million $ is not the same as releasing on netflix where no one knows how much money a movie made. 6 million or more people watched vice by now. Thats enough to spread the word and an additional 10 million will watch with in next year. Thats a lot of people in 1 year of release for a movie about fricking dick cheney.
Don’t most of the Academy’s voting members watch DVD screeners at home anyway? They aren’t even watching these titles in high definition. I don’t think the Hollywood elite are spending much time among the multiplex masses. When’s the last time Steven Spielberg bought a movie ticket and what did he see? He could afford to buy out the entire concession stand but does he ever pay for the overpriced popcorn?
That was my first thought… Don’t most academy members depend on screeners? Aren’t they the ones who find it IMPOSSIBLE to make a top 10 list for a genuine 10 BP nominees even WITH SCREENERS?
Nothing will devalue the Oscars more than relegating the best movies to the Emmy’s. Because if the best movies, from directors like Cuaron, Scorsese and the Coens are at the Emmy’s, why would the Oscars still need to exist? Best Picture becomes Best Picture besides all these other films. It’s like the WGA awards when there’s a Tarantino, Pixar and a bunch of foreign screenplays in contention: noone thinks the WGA winner actually is the best screenplay.
Cuaron, Scorsese, QT, the Coens et al. wouldn’t allow that to happen. Their egos demand Oscars.
Yah yah yah, we’ve all seen how Oscar-hungry the Coens are.
The night Joel and Ethen won 6 of them in a sweep, they both looked like they’d rather be having dick catheters inserted.
How many more Oscars do you think Cuaron is craving? Hes already got more than enough to build a golden wall around Trump’s turd-squirting mouthhole.
If they release a movie they think is Oscar worthy, they (or their Producers at the very least) will abide by the Academy’s rules.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the Academy to amend their rules to require a film to play for 30 or 60 days in select theaters prior to airing on all streaming services in order to be consider for an Oscar.
Oh, select theaters. So we’re going to move away from the one week in LA/NY system that worked perfectly fine for decades?
Yay for “select theaters” and a stern “fuck off” to the 250 million Americans who don’t live anywhere near one, right?
Have you ever been to theater where an artful esoteric movie has been playing for 8 weeks? You’ll often be the only lucky snot in the “audience”.
I’m sure AMC will be thrilled with your plan to keep movie gems playing every night for 8 weeks to empty auditoriums.
Do not enough people realize that the Academy can’t force your local small-town or medium-town multiplex to play Leave No Trace for 60 days. Or even 6 days. Or any days at all.
What about the eff off to everyone who doesn’t have Netflix? This is an actual question but can you even buy a Netflix movie on dvd or blu Ray? Like maybe buster Scruggs or Roma but what about a random Netflix movie
What Ryan is saying is that Spielberg’s anti-Netflix jihad will mess up a lot of non-Netflix product when it comes to Oscar
Part of this discussion has to do with audience right? So my question is if a movie goes to Netflix can an audience with no access to Netflix ever even see the movie? Right now a movie goes to la or nyc for a week has a short release somewhere else and then in three months (or whatever) is available on demand or on dvd or Blu-ray. So even if you have no access to the movie isn’t he theater if you want to you can still see the movie. If someone doesn’t have Netflix and we care about the audience, how are they getting the ability to see these movies (without stealing them via stream)
The fault is a movie exhibition business model that refuses to book a film like “Can you Ever Forgive” me because they want that screen for Ready Player One Part II or Hotel Transylvania Seventeen.
As Sasha said, Spielberg’s never had to beg to get a film funded or released, so why does he give a shit about riskier projects not being given a fair shake until Netflix and Amazon decided to so so.
Spielberg worked his way through like 5 years of working in television, one of those movies being Duel, before making a movie. And his second movie was jaws, which, if it had failed would have pretty much written him out of the business. He wasn’t just handed jaws after one scrappy short film or anything so I’m not sure where this anti Spielberg narrative is coming from
His third movie was Jaws, Sugarland Express was the second.
As has been pointed out by Ryan below, Jaws completely upended the way movie distribution worked up until that point, ushering in the nationwide multithousand screen top heavy toploaded “event”. And that model has been slowly faltering in the last decade or so as Streaming took off. He’s trying to save his outmoded business model while ironically failing to appreciate that what he thinks is being done to him was something HE did to a lot of his older colleagues 40 years ago.
Fair question.
(although I’m still curious about what people are unable to have Netflix, and if they can’t, how do they have DVD players and TVs? And anyway, to see Roma in its full glory, they would really need 4K players and 4K UHD TVs — and 4K UHD discs cost like $40 each, right?
So we’re talking about people who have $1000 of electronics, but they balk at 14 bucks for Netflix)
But here are some numbers:
Netflix has 139 million subscribers, worldwide
(9 million people worldwide saw The Favourite)
Most UHD discs are between $20-$30 at most for new releases. A $40 disc wouldn’t be unheard of but would be unusual, and if you’re savy you can get them for even less if you’re hunting for sales.
true true
I got preorder deal on BlackKklansman 4K for $14
I meant sticker price (but even most of those are $35)
I’m still worried about how all the people who cant get Netflix can still shop on Amazon
You can sign up for a Netflix free trial and then cancel before 30 days?
Most all libraries have USB Roku sticks people can check out for free.
Are you equally concerned about people who don’t have DVD players? Those people do exist, right?
Without saying where you live (unless you want to), what’s the population of your town?
Cold War came to a multiplex near you? First Reformed? At Eternity’s Gate?
I suppose if you asked Spielberg off the record if Oscar would be better off without Cold War, First Reformed, and Eternity’s Gate stealing nomination slots he would say “yes”
All good. I’m from Long Island. Close enough that I could see them. All this is for me to say, and I think what Spielberg is saying without speaking for him, is that the oscars are movies that were made to be seen on the big screen. Netflix is made to be streamed on a television. Is it a little “get off my lawn” sure but that doesn’t mean that he’s completely wrong or that he’s crazy to try and make that point
“what Spielberg is saying without speaking for him, is that the oscars are movies that were made to be seen on the big screen.”
It’s a drag to keep reminding people, but Roma was made to be seen on the big screen.
No other distributor wanted pay a fair sum to the producers to buy the rights to get it into theaters
So Cuarón accepted the offer that Netflix made — $15 million after the movie was already made. — so the financiers could recoup all their investment with a tidy profit.
Are there still people on this site who want to claim Netflix gave Cuarón a check for $15 million and told him, “now go make your movie! it better be good!”
Nope, nope, it was the other way round. Here’s how the arrangement unfolded:
1) Cuarón made a masterpiece.
2) It was paid for by Participant (by billionaire Jeffrey Skoll) and produced by Cuarón’s own company
3) After it was finished, they shopped Roma around to distributors.
4) Netflix saw it, and said, “Wow, this is great!”
5) Cuarón was like, “Yeah? Then how come nobody wants to buy the distrib rights.”
6) Netflix: “Would $15 million be enough?”
7) Cuarón: “Hmm…”
8) Netflix: How about if we promise to give it deluxe treatment — maybe we’ll spend another $25 million to promote it!
9) Cuarón: Holy shit. Nobody else in Hollywood is near as cool as you guys.
10) Netflix: Aww thanks.
11) Cuarón: How soon can I get that cash and my 3 Oscars?
12) Netflix: Almost instantaneously!
Ryan I understand how the distribution works and how this movie ended up a nextflix movie. If I may make a sports comparison, I feel like Netflix is a cheat, it’s like using a performance enhancing drug. Players who use performance enhancing drugs, like Bonds or Clemens don’t get in the hall of fame (not debating the merits, just the fact that they don’t get in). Their reward is the extra 150 million dollars they wouldn’t have gotten had they not cheated and their careers went the way a normal career would have (ie you don’t get better after 34). Bringing this back to Roma (or Scruggs which I enjoyed way more, though the last 40 minutes of Roma really got me) the reward for selecting Netflix (or being selected) is the amount of money you get (way more than other distributors) and the fact that you are in 150 million houses. It’s just seems like a cheat to me to also get Oscars when the distributor you choose is a streaming site for television
So you’re saying that any filmmaker who works for Netflix gives out their integrity for money and isn’t worthy of the industry’s respect? You scolded Pete Miesel for being disrespectful towards Spielberg but now you’re offending Scorsese and the Coens
That’s not what I was saying at all though, in fairness I can see how it can be construed that way. It has nothing to do with the filmmakers integrity (as opposed to a steroid user in baseball) but more to do with what I see as an unfair competitive advantage. Netflix has built in eyes and Netflix can keep a movie or any show on their “trending now” first page for literally as long as they want because they can decide what is trending and how many eyes get on something. A movie in theaters play by different sets of rules. Avatar made 700 million dollars and grew over time(unlike a Star Wars movie that makes at least a quarter of its money first week) and it was still out of theaters in like 4-5 months. Netflix doesn’t play by that rule (or any rule that Netflix doesn’t make for themselves). That’s great and all and it’s aqesome that so many people can see these shows and movies. My point in comparison to other people with a competitive advantage is that that should be reward in and of itself (and an Emmy or a golden globe, for TV movie, just not an Oscar). If I came off disrespectful towards someone like Cuarón or the Coen brothers that was not my intention, just poor writing skills. Unlike with Pete calling Spielberg Stevie, which was him intention
StevieGee23
I like you, dude. You’re sincere and considerate and well-meaning.
It pains me that you have chosen a wrong movie as evidence to help make your case.
“Avatar made 700 million dollars and grew over time(unlike a Star Wars movie that makes at least a quarter of its money first week)”
I’m sorry, this is incorrect.
In its first 12 days of saturation advertising and monopolizing screens in multiplexes coast to coast, Avatar earned $283 million.
It eventually earned $749 million
Avatar earned 38% of its total domestic gross in its first 2 weeks.
True, but Avatar also went 77,65,68 million over the first three weekends…Force Awakens went 247 (crazy), 150, 90…I thought Avatar went 75/77, so i was wrong about that. My point though was exactly what you said, even the biggest movies of all time did 40 percent (or however much Star Wars did) over three weeks, Roma can sit in the “multiplex” or the first page of Netflix for as long as Netflix sees fit (as it their right)…it’s not the same playing field
I feel as if you and I not hearing each other, Stevie.
It bothers you that Netflix can advertise it own content on its own site.
It doesn’t bother you when 20th Century Fox spends literally $150 million on Avatar marketing tie-ins with McDonald’s and Coke and Fox World Series and Fox NFL football.
It bothers you when convenient Netflix links appear on the Netflix main menu for 2 or 3 weeks [it was no longer than that, I assure you]
But it doesnt bother you that theater owners across American turned over 3500 screens to Avatar, often giving Avatar 4 or 5 screens in the same multiplex, pushing out every smaller worthy movie for months and months.
It bothers you that Netflix paid an upfront cost of $15M to Cuaron.
But it doesnt bother you that Cameron personally raked in $350 million.
You’re sure as heck right that it’s not a level playing field.
Roma took a narrow (relatively) humble path to the Oscars.
Avatar had multiple express highways built for it that led to a mountain of money far beyond any mountain of wealth ever before built in Hollywood.
Poor wittle Avatar didnt get to spend time on the revolving menu of anyone’s smart TV.
Roma got the amazing unfair advantage of millions of people scrolling right past it on their way to binge watch Friends.
StevieGee23,
I was going to let this slide last night, because the bickering was getting tedious ( both for those of us doing it, and for those who have to read it.)
But this metaphor you’ve cooked up that Netflix is using a “performance enhancing” cheat seems to me so absurd, I can’t just let it hang out there as if it’s a valid complaint.
Although the wackiness of your stance puts me at a loss for words.
How does it “cheat” to have 150 million families get what they pay for? They expect exclusive content and Netflix is providing it.
The households paid for that. Same as tickbuyers paid for what they get.
Where’s the cheat?
Where is the “performance enhancer”?
How is it a cheat for people in their homes to have the option of watching Roma if they want to — or else never even consider watching it — depending on their own personal taste?
How does it cheat the Oscars if only 50 people watch Roma or if 50 million people do?
(Don’t people often argue that box office clout can boost a movie at the Oscars? Netflix completely forgoes that boost. How is that a cheat? Seems more of a handicap.)
Meanwhile, how is it somehow NOT a cheat for a movie like poor wittle struggling Avatar to land in 3750 theaters the same night, pushing everything else off those screens.
How is it NOT a cheat for people to arrive at their local 16-screen multiplex and find Avatar occupying 8 of those screens?
Now onto the weird argument that it’s a money cheat.
You throw out this figure $150 million that disgraced athletes get to keep. That’s the cheater prize they collect with their fake achievement.
How the heck does that have a parallel with Netflix?
Who’s disgraced at Netflix?
Who at Netflix is doing anything illegal or forbidden?
What game did they win because of illicit activity?
And which disgraced players at Netflix get to keep this $150 million bonus scam money?
Who at Netflix is artificially enhancing their performance?
What sneaky mountain of cash are Netflix filmmakers collecting as unfair reward for their cheat?
Want a more valid comparison?
What filmmaker who chooses Netflix as a platform ever gets to walk away with a $70 personal payday
(That’s what Sandra Bullock got for Gravity. $70 million salary for a performance enhanced by $100 million of CGI.)
$70 million is more than 4 times the entire budget of The Favourite.
That’s still not a cheat. Because it’s not illicit or forbidden.
It’s business.
Every movie has it’s own business model to make money, and to be seen, and to rise to attention of the Oscars because of their artistic value.
It’s rarely fair.
But none of it is a cheat.
None of it is artificially enhanced.
Unless ALL of it is.
Lol I wish I had read this reply before responding to the other reply. I think we just have a philosophical disagreement about this (and since you and Sasha are better writers than me, my comparisons come off as clunky and not as I intended, unlike yours which are far more articulate). I never meant to say anything about a filmmaker being disgraced by going with Netflix. Though obviously looking back, since I compared them to Clemens and Bonds, how could what I wrote not come off like that. I don’t mean that it is the easy way out either, what I am trying to say is that they are almost playing a completely different game. Avatar (and the major studios) played the game like the Yankees of the late 90’s early 2000’s…buy every big free agent/buy 8 of 16 theaters…is it fair, probably not, but like with the 03 Yankees/Avatar, there is always a Marlins/Hurt Locker who can come and beat them. To me, (and this is where we disagree) Netflix isn’t playing on the same field. Nextflix is playing a different sport while being given a World Series championship when they win at their sport (again clunky, sorry). A better example I actually should have given is actually Hurt Locket vs. Roma because you’re right, anyone at any time could have seen Avatar.
Anyway, I do not think that any director is like chasing Oscars by going to Netflix (if they are they haven’t been paying attention), and I do not think that going to Netflix is in anyway a disgrace, and if I worded it like that earlier, that was not my intention.
(And I like the bickering, minus the racist bullshit above…as long as it doesn’t get personal and people are at least trying to make salient points, it’s usually pretty interesting. This article and Spielberg’s original comments lends to it. Anyway, thanks for responding, keep up the good work)
Cheers!
Truce?
Let’s all go watch a movie.
Anywhere we want to watch one.
Lol sounds good sir!
I am sure we have this same convo again around January of 2020.
Okay, I understand now the tone of the “reward is the money” part of your comment. I apologize for the crudeness of my comment
It still makes very little sense to me.
Some people choose to pay $15 per month so their family can enjoy 100s of movies and other brilliant content all month long, watching their favorites as many times as they like.
Other people choose to pay $75 for 2 hours of fun at the multiplex trough, so their family can spend one night watching one movie. If they enjoy it then they can pay another $75 to watch it again.
How does this disadvantage the movie that’s in the theater?
How do the Netflix-supported filmmakers “cheat” the studio-suported filmmakers?
Netflix paid the producers of Roma $15M so they got a small profit on their investment. The actresses in Roma probably got, what? $100k?
Warner Bros paid Sandra Bullock $70 million for Gravity.
So Bullock got $69,900,000 more than
Yalitza Aparicio.
But somehow, you feel Bullock is at the Oscars fair and square… but Yalitza got to the Oscars because Netflix cheated?
Yalitza should feel lucky that people watched her movie on Netflix? You says that’s her reward. Period.
Meanwhile,
“Hey Sandra! Here’s $70 million! Want to try for another Oscar too! Sure! You earned it, babe!”
“Hey Yalitza, stay the fuck away from the Dolby Theater, you cheater. You’re lucky anybody even knows your name.”
This is all so Twilight Zone to me.
<3 Ryan
With all due respect to Steven Spielberg, Netflix has evolved from straight-up television into a budding cinematic juggernaut; producing feature films, as well as high quality television series. Using his argument for a minute, take studios like FOX. FOX also produces feature films from its subsidiary branches such as Fox Searchlight and 20th Century Fox. I recently found that Paramount now has its own streaming channel. So the lines have become blurred to the point where they’re virtually indistinguishable. Plus, tickets to a theater are becoming insanely expensive, and it only stands to reason that people would rather wait until films are released on their preferred streaming service. So, the times, they are a-changin.’ Just because a movie isn’t released in theaters doesn’t mean moviegoers aren’t going to see it and have an opinion about it. So what difference should it make if it was Paramount, Fox, Dreamworks, Netflix, or even Amazon that produced a film that audiences respond to?
But the movies from all those Fox subsidiaries are all released as theatrical motion pictures, they aren’t coming out in entirely different formats.
Fox also has a Television branch, which famously produced ‘The Simpsons’ for 30 seasons, up to this point.
That’s irrelevant. 20th Century Fox predates the Fox TV network by a good seventy years. If they had made a habit of airing 20th Century Fox’s movies exclusively on the Fox Network after a week in theaters and then submitting them for Oscar consideration that would matter. If Netflix had a separate movie studio that put out movies with a 90 day theatrical window like Amazon does no one would have a problem with them.
It’s pointless to grasp for straws, making an issue out of nothing. I’m happy ‘Roma’ got the recognition that it did and I hope more follow
To me this discussion has never really been about “saving the movies as an artform” because the utter destruction of cinema is something that we’re at least a long way away from. Instead it’s a conversation about what we want from a movie. Spielberg is shouting “Netflix winning Oscars will kill cinema” but doesn’t care when the same awards push the crafts awards to the commercial break, and thus completely fine with presenting a signal that genuine craft isn’t valued in American cinema anymore. Others are shouting: “The world needs to evolve and the modern theatrical distriution model is pushing populist things to the forefront, leaving art to a terrible place” as if Netflix is the savior of cinema without which it will lose all its value. We all want cinema to survive, we all want good things for the artform but we all seem to have this fear that what we love is going to be ripped away from us and we’re acting in all sorts of stupid ways because of that.
So Spielberg fears Netflix? Why shouldn’t he? He’s one of two directors in America whose movies make money in theatres just because his name is attached to them, he’s the director of the biggest theatrical experiences and the most classical prestige films, his whole persona is based on an incredibly traditional way of discussing what is good cinema. I don’t believe that Spielberg’s fear of Netflix is the same as Film Twitter’s fear of Netflix. That is evident in the way that he talks about his pet film of last season, Green Book (I’m sorry, Sasha, I’m not trying to bash the film but rather just state that a film like that has very traditional things in it that I can see Spielberg really liking). Spielberg’s mindset is probably of the film world where the phrase “Green Book is the best buddy comedy since Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” means that the movie is good instead of dated, where people can wax poetic about what seeing The Greatest Show on Earth in theatres meant to them when they were growing up. To this audience the movies are the movie theatre, in the good old days the studio system would make wonderful and entertaining movies that they’d go see and be in awe of. There were stars and spectacle, directorial visions were there but they were wrapped in a studio sheen and an attitude that the film was for the audience. Or maybe they’d go to the arthouse theatre to see a non-English language film, something that’s very impressive but not anything that needs to be studied or looked at in terms of how to change the American film industry (has Spielberg ever talked about a film that isn’t in English).
This film world is trembling these days: the stars are gone, spectacle is limited to a few movies a year that are all interconnected. The movies that people discuss as good suddenly are ones with similar tones to the films they thought shouldn’t be taken to note when looking at what should be the future of American cinema. The discussion about quality doesn’t end at the directors, the producers and the actors, suddenly people are obsessed with a movie’s cinematography, discuss every choice the editor has made and assess the sound designers’ work in detail. And now they want to take the theatres away? Respect for the movie theatre is really the only thing that’s really left about the Hollywood studio system of the 50s, everything else has been broken by the auteur theory, independent cinema, the death of the star system and the recent almost mechanical turns of the blockbuster culture (to this film world the ideal blockbuster culture seems to be like Spielberg’s Ready Player One, as mechanic as anything else but at least paying constant respect to the filmmaking of the better days). They’re not willing to just let that one thing that they have left go.
But I don’t think that this point of view is the only one that’s wrong. A lot of the film Twitter Netflix fear is based on a strong disconnect between the paying audience and the ideals of the film community as people are angry that things that would never actually happen weren’t given the chance to. But you know what, the “Netflix is amazing and is holding up cinema” argument doesn’t really stand either.
I feel like there’s actually quite a similar notion of the myth of “artful cinema” behind this passion, mainly the myth of the American auteur, which perhaps never really existed outside the 1970s. Would Coppola, Bogdanoivch, Ashby, Friedkin, Fosse or Altman have been able to get what they wanted with such freedom in any other decade? I don’t personally believe it to be the case. So we’re making cynical comparisons to the one era when filmmakers like the Coens, Dee Rees, Noah Baumbach, Ava DuVernay and others like them would get not only the acclaim they deserve but also the money and support that they need. But it’s an unfair comparison, we’re not in the 70s anymore. But then comes Netflix that promises, artistic freedom and money, and I think that a lot of people see stars, they think that maybe that attitude can come back.
But I just don’t think it’s scalable. There are maybe 10 films a year that Netflix produces that one might say are of some quality, and then there are probably about 50 that are pretty awful but that a lot of people watch. Let’s say that you’d want 30 good films from Netflix each year. You’d either have to scale things to the point where you’d get 150 bad ones that bring a lot of the viewers. Suddenly you’d have 180 new movies on Netflix each year and suddenly, a Roma would get lost in the shuffle, just like it would in the theatre. And if their finest films aren’t watched even on Netflix, they’re just not going to produce films like that anymore. Or if they’d just become a patron saint for good cinema, and make notably less bland and artless films and instead put the money to distribute good content, soon Netflix would lose audiences because people aren’t going to pay for Netflix to see the new Baumbach and Coen movies and soon they’d be like a weird mix of Annapurna and MUBI, patron saint and obscure streaming service in one package.
Or if you think: what if Netflix stays the same but other people start doing similar release models. There would mean more good movies and everyone would get what they want. But then you’d have 10 options of what streaming service you want and people aren’t going to order all of them so you’re left with a situation where each service gets less and less subscribers and suddenly it’s not profitable anymore.
So maybe this idea of Netflix returning the command to the auteur in American cinema is simply just not going to work. Maybe they can offer something like that for a few filmmakers a year but it’s going to most likely remain like that, and they’re going to get to choose which filmmakers they like. Paul Schrader mentioned that he was conversing with Netflix about First Reformed but they weren’t eventually interested. Even Netflix has boundaries, they’re most likely not going to buy Romas year in, year out. Instead art films are going to have to struggle in the market just as before, we just get a few mid-budget films that might not have happened otherwise in feature form.
To end this incredibly long and pointless ramble, my personal attitude towards Netflix: I go to the movies maybe 3-4 times a week (generally at least one of those in a repertory theatre) and I feel like that’s enough for me to say that I’m giving money to the cause of theatrical distribution (by the way, a bizarre thing about the situation where I live: I think I read somewhere a few months ago that new movie theatres are being opened at a record speed right now in the city where I live). I also appreciate Netflix, but as like Sasha says in this article, a Renaissance patron: they give money to who they like and let them do whatever they want, but it’s a limited group of people because it’s a limited amount of money and there is no future situation where this patron could hold even a percent of all art that is incredible, nor should they.
“he’s the director of the biggest theatrical experiences and the most classical prestige films”
With all due respect, you can count the “most classical prestige” films he’s made in the last twenty years on one hand. He’s remaking West Side Story right now because he’s lost the ability to make an original film anymore.
Dude is in his 70s. Even if he only made Jaws and then died he’d be one of the top, what 15 most influential American directors of all time. You make compelling arguments but your (seemingly) hatred of Spielberg and your disrespect of the man (or at least what he means to American cinema even if you hate all of his movies) really makes it hard to fully appreciate.
I don’t hate his movies, I do think he’s been on a noticeable decline since Munich though.
I find his attitude that he’s someone saving cinema from the likes of Alfonso Cuaron to be somewhat misplaced and kind of pisses on a lot of his colleagues who frankly make really good money from streaming residuals (do recall there was a strike by SAG and WGA to make sure Netflix and Amazon didn’t simply pocket all the money when a movie was streamed) as well as the opportunity to work despite an increasingly risk averse tentpole obsessed studio system.
The studio system is only being kept afloat because of international receipts anyway. The US exhibition model isn’t working anymore, and streaming is filling the void for people who don’t want to spend nearly $40 to see some shitty superhero movie once. Perhaps he needs to devote time to figuring what distribution model will turn that around because you can’t put the genie back in the bottle at this point.
That’s probably right (I’d say that there are 5/14 that are actual prestige films, 7 that are spectacles and two weird outliers that also happen to be his best films of the previous 20 years, Catch Me if You Can and Munich, the former being way too much a 50s-60s studio throwback to ever be prestige and the latter being way too dark and complex to be just a prestige film) but it feels like a notable part of his image as a filmmaker, that he moves from epic genre films to awards-friendly character drama effortlessly, as if to keep himself as both a major financial force in the industry and a director fighting for the nobility of cinema
Crystal Skull and the Terminal vehemently disagree with you there.
As the best, or as classifications? Crystal Skull is a spectacle, a major blockbuster, I’m not seeing really any other way to classify it but I’d love to hear your opinion on why it’s not one. And The Terminal is a prestige story in its basic narrative as well as largely in its execution, perhaps a bit leaning towards romantic comedy but still, as far as romantic comedies go, it’s very much aiming for more than just a basic rom com tone and trying to aim for the more drama-like moments of the story
Terminal and Crystal Skull were easily two of the worst films he ever made.
I agree that they’re not that good (although Crystal Skull is actually really fun to watch in the background, one of the few times in recent Spielberg films that I actually like Kaminski’s cinematography) but still, I think they fit those classification boxes quite well (even The Terminal is in theory very traditionally awards-friendly, it just isn’t good enough to get that far)
Netflix is television, Oscars are for cinema.
So Spielberg is right. Not Netflix. Not Ava DuVernay etc.
I hope that Academy will change its rules. As they can do it and should do it.
I just don’t want 2 sets of rules. One for Netflix and a second for everybody else. Amazon did the right thing with Manchester by the Sea. Why couldn’t NF have done the same with Roma? Because they knew they had a boxoffice lemon on their hands.
What are you talking about with two sets of rules? Netflix followed the current Oscar rules with Roma, just like everyone else
Uh oh, you’re in Ryan’s doghouse. You followed up Variety’s tweet about this.
Some people care more about the stories while others care more about the theatre experience. It swings and roundabouts. To be honest, the stories attract me more than anything else and that is why Netflix is so attractive to me. In this sense, it looks like the winner.
I think there is one thing that everyone is missing (and I am only being like 15 percent facetious) and that is that Steven Spielberg made the greatest TV movie ever made, Duel, and it wasn’t even nominated for Best TV movie at the damn Emmys. That being said, how exactly is a Netflix movie different than a really good TV movie? I picked Roma to win (the big dummy that I am) and was really psyched that Buster Scruggs got a couple of nominations, but how is Spielberg really wrong about this? It just seems like Netflix gets to have it both ways, without having the pressure of opening a movie or really advertising it. (No Sarcasm) Good for them, but not really fair play
Roma and Buster Scruggs played in theaters under the eligibility rules laid out by the Academy. Seems to me that Stevie wants traditional studios to have one set of rules and everyone else another.
Maybe because most movies don’t get to go into theaters for a week and then have a built in watchability of 150 million people (when it invariably makes no money because who is going to pay 15 bucks a ticket to see a movie when they are already paying 10 bucks a month to see the same movie)?
But to Sasha’s point if the movies are still being SEEN, the problem is what exactly?
I said below, all Netflix will do in response is not so quietly purchase a second run theater in LA and one in NYC and host their “Spielberg eligibility screenings” there to maintain eligibility without badly affecting their own business model. And how will the goalposts be moved after that?
I am almost not sure why I responding to someone calling Steven Spielberg Stevie, because clearly nothing anyone says is going to matter, however, I’m at work and bored so here goes. Rules are rules, and there is the spirit of the rule, so can Netflix decide, after seeing the list of movies up for the Emmy’s this year, that maybe Dumplin (example) is clearly not good enough to win an oscar, but maybe is good enough to be nominated for best TV movie? Would that still be within the spirit of the rule? The Oscars are for Best Picture, not Best Program, Netflix is and works as a TV studio (the best one around, but a TV studio nonetheless). If HBO decided that the Finale of Game of Thrones is spectacle enough (and long enough) to be worthy of being in theaters (and put it in for one showing an hour before the showing of the finale) would you be cool with it getting nominated for best picture? They might argue that narratively it isn’t much different then Return of the King…no beginning or middle, just and ending. You might be cool with it, Spielberg wouldn’t and I don’t think he’s crazy.
“If HBO decided that the Finale of Game of Thrones is spectacle enough (and long enough) to be worthy of being in theaters (and put it in for one showing an hour before the showing of the finale) would you be cool with it getting nominated for best picture? ”
If they gave it a theatrical release and it met the threshold for screenings, more power to them.
Ok, so again, if Netflix decided that Dumplin should try and win a Best TV movie Emmy are you ok with that?
Is Dumplin in the theaters first, or TV only? If I recall correctly Toy Story 2 was originally meant to be a straight to video release but during production they were so pleased with it they changed to theatrical.
It happens.
The part of your logic that I disagree with is this:
“Netflix works as a TV studio” -> “Netflix is a TV studio”. Why does making some TV things make everything they do into TV things?
Doesn’t Disney do TV shows?
Because if 5 people or 50 million people watch Roma it makes no difference to them…There is never going to be a Titan A.E that bankrupts an entire studio, so there is a lot less pressure on what they make and gets made, just like Pilot Season for every TV studio and Network. And good on them, they are amazing, I pay for Netflix and watch a lot of their stuff. A movie that makes 500,000,000 box office is seen by probably around 41,000,000 people (16 dollars a ticket example, I am not sure if that is close or not). Netflix has 137,000,000 subscribers…it’s not a fair fight
So, you’re flat out saying that the problem isn’t Netflix it’s that the studios haven’t changed their business model with the changing times.
No I am saying that Netflix operates like a TV studio and should therefore be nominated for Emmy’s. Just like TV movies are nominated for Emmy’s
All Netflix is doing is what Miramax did back in the day, funding distribution of previously conceived projects. No one called Miramax a TV studio.
Because Miramax put their movies in theater and didn’t put 98 (or so) percent of them on a streaming site or a television station maybe? Roma just won best director at the Oscars a week ago, it is a beautiful movie that deserves the big screen, and I can’t watch it on the big screen because Netflix doesn’t play the same game as every other studio putting movies up for Oscars. That is all (I think) Spielberg is trying to say. Again, agree or don’t agree, I just don’t see how you can call that crazy. That’s like saying Disney bought a movie, put it on the Disney Channel, advertised it on the disney channel, realized they had a random great performance in it, put it in theaters for one showing, and then never put it back in theaters again. That person should be up for an emmy, not an oscar, even though by rules, Disney was able to game the system. Clearly you disagree, and by rule you’re right, but I don’t think, and neither does Spielberg, clearly, that that follows the spirit of what the Oscars are all about
Roma played in theaters in NY and LA for one week (the Oscar qualifying run) BEFORE launching on their streaming service. So the hypothetical of Disney streaming something THEN putting in a theater does not apply.
I saw ROMA in the theater. It played from December to at least mid-February here in Atlanta. This whole thing about it not playing in a theater and being impossible to see in a theater is crazy. And on top of that, ROMA is the kind of the film that would never have been given a wide release ANYWAY. And I saw it in the theater after it was already on Netflix so it’s not like the moment it hit Netflix it was automatically yanked from the theater.
All true, BJ
It’s been mentioned before, but Roma earned more in theaters than Cold War did.
I also saw Cold War in the theater (it was fantastic, btw) but no one is making a stink about it being an Amazon film. Nor did they make a stink about Manchester By the Sea being an Amazon film. It’s baffling. Spielberg, your film won, let it go!
I’m not saying that Spielberg is even right, I am just saying that it isn’t fucking crazy, as Pete seems to be saying, that Spielberg or anyone in the movie industry might have this opinion. I know there are no totally level playing fields when Disney or whomever can spend 100 times what someone like A24 (or another new studio) can spend, but at least they are playing the same game, Netflix, in Spielberg’s opinion (and honestly, mostly mine) isn’t
Netflix isn’t just a company though, it’s a platform. If Netflix just gave their films a 90 day window like Amazon did no one would care, it would just be a modernization of the old theaters to DVD to HBO to broadcast pipeline.
No one would care but what would make them different from any other studio that would give their stuff to Netflix at some point after those 90 days? And I’m not sure whether Netflix’s ideal is that everyone would be just fine with their distribution model if they feel that that kind of model is not for them (their fights with everyone prove that, they don’t seem to really care whether film people are in love with their distribution model).
And that argument still doesn’t explain the logic that I’m baffled by: why does a hybrid platform like Netflix automatically become a TV only platform when they release some TV things on that platform? If Netflix only released movies, would it be a movie platform? Or if a movie theatre started playing TV series, would it stop being a movie platform?
Netflix isn’t a TV platform because it plays TV shows, it’s a TV platform because it’s not a theatrical distribution. If Netflix only released movies it would still be a TV platform because those movies would play on TV, much like TCM is still a TV channel even through it basically only plays movies.
I feel like I need to repeat this as it kind of works as the mirror image of it: if movie theatres started playing TV series, would they become a TV platform? Or would the TV series become movies as a result of being distributed in theatres?
That scenario is a little too ridiculous to really entertain. Would they be selling tickets for each episode? If so I suppose that would be a return of the old serial release model and in that capacity they would become films of sorts if they were given the usual release windows, etc.
Thank you, Ferdinand.
Anybody ever hear of an TV outfit called CBS.
They put up the cash for one of the very best films of 2013
It won the Grand Prix at Cannes
CBS gave it the normal 13 week theatrical run, it earned back 3 times its budget.
It’s a brilliant film by a couple of guys who have 8 Oscars.
But the Academy shat on them because CBS stepped up to distribute their gem. (And followed all the rules)
Inside Llewyn Davis
That was 5 years ago.
Times are changing and more and more Academy members are getting richer and richer thanks to revolutionary new distribution models.
Spielberg doesnt need a more flexible distribution platform.
He’s rich because he helped create the saturation wide-release scheme of opening on 3000 screens (crowding out smaller movies so that Juraasic Park 6 can be scheduled around the clock, a new showtime every half hour.)
I’m sure Robopocalypse is gonna be worth the past 5 years of his genius that he’s piddled into it.
He sure needs another billion $ in his bank account on top of the $4 billion he’s already hoarding.
Billions that he could be using to help finance 100 worthy struggling filmmakers. Instead of helping AMC sell $10 buckets of sugar and salt.
Here’s cinema supporter Spielberg in an interview last week:
https://twitter.com/filmystic/status/1102305236067201025
I did not see a single article or read any anecdote blaming CBS films for Inside Llewyn Davis being snubbed and considering that they had no problem giving a BP nom to Hell or High Water I’m pretty sure that was just a lapse in taste.
I think his point is (because he had to go through this before he was the billionaire that you mention) that when you are an aspiring filmmaker, for your first movie or two, and you raise your own money then it’s your movie. There is a discipline and an autonomy and a respect earned and gained with doing things on your own at first (in whatever you are doing) that is immeasurable moving forward. The struggle is what can help produce great art is what he’s saying (or what I think he’s saying as in someone who likes Spielberg and is willing to give the greatest, or at least my favorite, director of the last 50 years the benefit of the doubt). Figuring out how to make something that “needs” to cost 5 mil on a 400k budget can make someone better. I don’t think Scorsese is able to make Taxi Driver or Raging Bull if he first didn’t make Mean Streets first. I find it hard to believe that people really believe Steven Spielberg is like an enemy of cinema.
Your Twitter callback game is really fucking strong today.
Again,
Netflix has the ability to adjust to whatever roadblock MISTER Spielberg thinks should be thrown up. Again, all they will do is purchase their own theaters in NY and LA to meet the Spielberg minimum of theatrical showings. Then what? Where will he move the goalposts next? Pretty soon Sasha’s point will be borne out that this has nothing to do with Netflix, but a broken business model in the US that Netflix had very little to do with breaking to begin with.
No, the rules he’s proposing will presumably be applied to everyone.
Rules that would also screw out of eligibility smaller independent and non-standard offerings that barely get released in theaters no matter what their quality is.
Can you name a single non-streaming movie that’s been nominated in a major category despite only spending one single week in theatrical release?
Outside of documentaries, which can be exempted from this, these movies that could be caught in the crossfire don’t exist.
Then why have the one week rule then if it isn’t an issue?
Phantom Thread was only released with two weeks left in the year in the NY/LA configuration and it was nominated in four major categories.
Yeah, but then it stayed in theaters for months thereafter, it wasn’t pulled from theaters after it met its eligibility requirements and then released on a different medium.
Months afterwards in 2018, is Spielberg suggesting that eligibility can be retroactively applied?
Probably. All he’s looking for is a window before it streams, I doubt that he’d object to most of it being in January.
Refresh my memory: who gives a fuck whether or not he objects?
I think a lot of people probably care what Steven Spielberg has to say on any aspect of movie making or the film industry. Not that I am in anyway involved other than as a fan of movies, but I certainly am
The Academy, it would seem.
“Can you name a single non-streaming movie that’s been nominated in a major category despite only spending one single week in theatrical release?”
Every movie for the past 100 years that opened on Christmas Day.
That’s different, those movies weren’t being pulled from theaters the next week, quite the contrary they usually expand after that. The eligibility window for a particular year is not the issue being addressed, it’s the overall commitment to theatrical windows.
Dude, movies get released the last week of December to make the eligibility date all the time.
It is short-sighted to assume that Netflix is going to be some filmmakers’ paradise forevermore. Right now they happen to be in a place where they’re trying to gain legitimacy as the place to go for new movies so they are investing in films that will get the awards attention in much the same way they once (and to some extent still are) focused heavily on getting Emmy consideration for their TV shows.
However, eventually they’re going to shift towards giving the people what their algorithms say they want and arthouse film is going to be left behind. Hopefully art house theaters and mini-major studios won’t have been disrupted out of existence before then but if they are we’ll have lost a lot and if making this simple change in the Academy’s rules can in some small way combat this I don’t see any reason not to do it.
But art films are already left behind. Netflix is the new thing but I am sure there will be others who will follow them.
Look at how television has changed since the 1980s. Back when there were only three or four networks producing content, that content was much more formulaic. There were good shows here and there, but most of it was insipid. Kind of like where Hollywood is now. Once cable outlets started producing original content, we started seeing shows of much higher quality and shows that spoke to a much wider array of audiences. And that’s a good thing.
Netflix is not going to have a monopoly on streaming. They and Amazon and Disney and any number of other players will be competing for subscribers. A subscription model incentivizes the production a high volume of differentiated content and creative risk-taking. And that’s a very good thing.
Yeah but that competition for eyeballs has resulted in “peak tv,” a sort of situation where everything gets greenlit but very little actually gets seen in large numbers. That’s somewhat workable in the short term when everyone’s trying to stake out a claim in the “digital future” but the bubble is eventually going to burst and certain services are going to solidify as dominant and they’re going to stop recklessly throwing money at everything and they’re going to have to sustain a profit.
“Hopefully art house theaters won’t have been disrupted out of existence before then.”
Tell me the names of towns where less than 500,000 people live where you can go to an “arthouse theater”
Multiplexes destroyed the era of arthouse theaters in a blink of an eye.
My dudes, I grew up before there were DVDs
Every single one of the 500 classic movies I saw as a child and as a teenager, I saw them all on TV.
A mere 20 years ago there was no “theatrical experience” for anyone interested preserving the memory of classic American cinema history.
Millions of people like us who love film noir, for example, would never have seen any classic film noir in our entire lives if not for TV
Blockbuster Video and VHS made those movies available for the first time in decades. As well as treasures of international cinema that we once could only read about in books.
When I was in middle school, 7th grade Ryan went to the public library every Wednesday night where upstairs they screened movies by Preston Sturges and Douglas Sirk on a roll-down 6×6 plastic screen with a rattling 16mm projector.
It was glorious, but it was also pretty shitty.
and now the availability of 50,000 movies are available at the touch of a button to any little 7th grader movie nerdlings who are just becoming interested in movies.
Now I can speak the title of any movie ever made into my Roku remote and 6 different ways to watch them pop up on my screen, click click, and it’s instantly playing in high-def, restored to pristine flawlessmess
All thanks to streaming.
No thanks to people who act like streaming is the end of the world.
Yes, Netflix likes to create original content because studio license fees are slippery and exorbitant.
But Netflix doesnt prevent TCM or a multitude of other classic streaming services to exist. No, instead, together they all create a mutually supportive vibrant ecosystem of various specialties.
In fact, know who killed FilmStuck? The corporate owners of Hollywood studios. Those asshole gatekeepers.
Thanks to streaming we are all living in the best time in world history to be a movielover
So I wish the grumbly-ass bitches who can’t appreciate that fact would quit their dreary bitching.
btw I encourage all of you to sign up for charter memberships to the Criteron Channel. Sign up before the official launch in April for discount rates and charter member perks.
Please note that when I refer to “art houses” I’m talking about specialty theaters which show new foreign films, documentaries, and specialty screenings like the Oscar nominated shorts. I am not talking about repertory theaters which focus on showing classic films. These theaters do exist and in greater numbers than you’re making them out to be. 71.2% of the American population is urban and even if arthouse theaters primarily exist in the top 25 markets they’re still available to more than a third of the population.
As far as classic cinema, streaming is not exactly the ideal for that either. Compared to what’s available through physical media through places like the library or even Netflix’s still functioning DVDs by mail service the streaming titles available through places like Netflix or even Filmstruck is minuscule.