Poll: Should Original Movies from Streaming Providers be Eligible for an Oscar? - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
View Poll Results: Should Original Movies from Streaming Providers be Eligible for an Oscar?
Yes 123 51.68%
No 65 27.31%
It doesn't matter; awards are meaningless 50 21.01%
Voters: 238. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 60Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 10:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 4,335
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1197 Post(s)
Liked: 882
I suppose nobody cares that the oscars/hollywood critics rate all liberal social ideals as great and conservative ideals as unworthy. Science fiction is generally considered second rate as well unless it serves some liberal ideal overtly.

There is no balance among hollywood or its critics. Just one big echo chamber. I’m not so sure why people are so upset about facebook’s bias when the hollywood/movie industry is so one sided.

Look at the recent fiasco that was star wars 8. Compare the critics to the fan ratings on rotten tomatoes and the bias is obvious.

I am increasingly choosing not to support this industry unless they can speak to the views of a wider audience. I guess this is just as much the responsibility of people on the right or others to produce more of their own content...

They talk diversity but they aren’t even serious it. They claim global warming but their movies espouse lifestyles that dont “solve” it. They talk anti-gun but they like to show people shooting guns and weapons. They stick women in every engineering and leadership role possible these days to fulfill their girl-power quotient even if the character makes no sense at all (look no further than Rey or the junkyard girl in pacific rim 2). They might put a token asian in but they rarely represent anything “real” about asain behavior or culture, just easy stereotypes. They are hypocrites of the n-th order and the oscars are no different from where I’m sitting.

Does it make any difference anymore where a movie is played or whatever? I wouldn’t mind an award being given to a great movie played anywhere. I suspect in the long run, its not going to make any difference how the content is showed. Oscars is an movie industry insider thing that is becoming increasingly less relevant as the tv series are actually ending up being better than the movies in many ways (although also biased politically, etc). Are people watching the oscars anymore?
thehun likes this.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 11:11 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,170
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4384 Post(s)
Liked: 3336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Chaves View Post
So his argument is basically if the movie isn't shown in theaters than it does not count for OSCAR consideration? Okay fine then create a category for Instant release movies like how they have a category for foreign films and similar.
There is already a category for that... at the Emmys. It's called Outstanding Television Movie. In fact, Netflix won that award last year for Black Mirror: San Junipero.

The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences has ruled that streaming services qualify as television providers. Streaming shows and movies are eligible for Emmys, not Oscars.

The Oscars are for movies that premiere in theatrical release. All the nominees for Best Foreign-Language Film, Best Documentary, etc. had to play in theaters, even if just for a single-week qualifying run. If Netflix wants its movies to be nominated for Oscars, they need to be released theatrically first. That's exactly what they did last year for Mudbound, which wound up nominated for four Oscars.

The year before, Amazon did the same thing with Manchester by the Sea, which was nominated for six Oscars and won one of them.

The streaming services are unlikely to do this for every movie, because the ones that premiere in theaters first are then disqualified for Emmys. They need to weigh which category they feel they have a better shot at winning when making decisions for a release rollout.
Daniel Chaves and Uppsalaing like this.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #33 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 11:22 AM
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,101
Mentioned: 442 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9171 Post(s)
Liked: 16173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
There is already a category for that... at the Emmys. It's called Outstanding Television Movie. In fact, Netflix won that award last year for Black Mirror: San Junipero.

The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences has ruled that streaming services qualify as television providers. Streaming shows and movies are eligible for Emmys, not Oscars.

The Oscars are for movies that premiere in theatrical release. All the nominees for Best Foreign-Language Film, Best Documentary, etc. had to play in theaters, even if just for a single-week qualifying run. If Netflix wants its movies to be nominated for Oscars, they need to be released theatrically first. That's exactly what they did last year for Mudbound, which wound up nominated for four Oscars.

The year before, Amazon did the same thing with Manchester by the Sea, which was nominated for six Oscars and won one of them.

The streaming services are unlikely to do this for every movie, because the ones that premiere in theaters first are then disqualified for Emmys. They need to weigh which category they feel they have a better shot at winning when making decisions for a release rollout.
Thank you for that summary.

And thusly are justified many truly miserable little "art house" theaters, which in my experience are almost always inferior in terms of AV experience to even a modest home entertainment system. Please, let me have an early release on Vudu I can stream instead. Please.

When I buy or rent a movie on Vudu or iTunes, that's not TV. IMO, purchased and rented streaming content, if available on all platforms, is a "real" movie as opposed to to a TV movie. Lines are blurred but in the end showing it on a projector is not the feat it was back when movies where shot and projected on film. I get why folks don't want a Netflix-exclusive offering qualifying but even then... seems like things can get arbitrary when you enter this gray area.

The current state of home theater and high-end flat-panel display tech makes the idea of a theatrical release providing a definitive, markedly superior viewing experience obsolete. That was not true in the past.
RichB and Daniel Chaves like this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum
imagic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 11:23 AM
Senior Member
 
WayneJoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 336
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 106
If Netflix did it more like Amazon where they put their films first in 100+ theaters they should be eligible. If streaming "TV" shows are qualified for Emmy's why should movies made for the same service be eligible for Oscars? Exceptions should be made for the documentary and short film categories where it might be hard to field enough eligible films.
WayneJoy is offline  
post #35 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 11:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Daniel Chaves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: LA (Valley Village)
Posts: 1,811
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 624 Post(s)
Liked: 491
Ah okay so they just have to show there movies in a few indie theaters enough to meet the qualification, okay well they could certainly do that so yeah I get your point.

Projector: BenQ w1500 + ES Sable 135" 16:9 Screen AVR: Marantz SR6011 ATMOS/DTSX + Unity 2ch Amp + Darbee 5000s Speakers: Polk Audio TSX550t (FL/FR), CS2 Series II (C), FXiA6 (SL/SR), Monitor40 Series II (RL/RR), TSx110B (Ceiling FL/FR RL/RR) LFE: (2) JL Audio 12" Subs + (2) Dayton 15" Subs + (2) ButtKicker LFE Arrangement: 7.1.4 Source: OPPO UDP-203 4k Bluray Player, HTPC, nVidia Shield TV Pro, Hauppauge OTA DVR
Daniel Chaves is offline  
post #36 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 11:52 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,170
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4384 Post(s)
Liked: 3336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Chaves View Post
Ah okay so they just have to show there movies in a few indie theaters enough to meet the qualification, okay well they could certainly do that so yeah I get your point.
For some of the documentaries and short films that get nominated for Oscars, the studio will put the movie in literally just one theater in Los Angeles for a week to qualify.
Daniel Chaves likes this.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #37 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 12:02 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,170
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4384 Post(s)
Liked: 3336
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
And thusly are justified many truly miserable little "art house" theaters, which in my experience are almost always inferior in terms of AV experience to even a modest home entertainment system. Please, let me have an early release on Vudu I can stream instead. Please.

When I buy or rent a movie on Vudu or iTunes, that's not TV. IMO, purchased and rented streaming content, if available on all platforms, is a "real" movie as opposed to to a TV movie. Lines are blurred but in the end showing it on a projector is not the feat it was back when movies where shot and projected on film. I get why folks don't want a Netflix-exclusive offering qualifying but even then... seems like things can get arbitrary when you enter this gray area.

The current state of home theater and high-end flat-panel display tech makes the idea of a theatrical release providing a definitive, markedly superior viewing experience obsolete. That was not true in the past.
I don't disagree with you that a home theater is often a better viewing experience than many cinemas. Nevertheless, there needs to be some minimum criteria for qualification, and right now that criteria is that the movies need to be released theatrically. Without that, there's no meaningful distinction between what's eligible for an Oscar and what's eligible for an Emmy. If you remove that barrier, suddenly you'll see Modern Family and This Is Us nominated for Best Picture, which would make no sense at all.

Although imperfect, I can't think of a better criteria to draw the line with.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #38 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 12:19 PM
Senior Member
 
BenjaminKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vista, CA
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 40
I don't entirely agree that awards are meaningless. They do help us to bookmark what we felt was important and worthy at a point in time, just as box office numbers do. There's an unmistakable difference between what entertains and attracts vast numbers of people, and what "industry insiders" value in their craft. These awards are not, and should not be a direct reflection of entertainment power and financial success.

As for the poll question in particular, I will say that I disagree with Spielberg's opinion here because I don't see what the end-display medium has to do with the production of a film. If you produce a movie intended for theatrical release, and then the studio sells it to Netflix instead, what does that have to do with anything. Heck, that almost happened with Annihilation which is, IMHO, a fantastic work of art. I have no idea if it will be nominated for any Oscars, but it would be ashamed if it was disqualified for not being released in theaters. I believe that in many parts of the world, it did go directly to streaming in fact.

As for those that don't like politics in film, I understand but feel sad for you. As a recovering conservative, I get the fact that storytellers are more often than not slanted leftwards, and there just isn't much worthy right-leaning stuff out there. But it makes perfect sense to me. Storytellers want the audience to care about something, and I think it's difficult to tell a compelling conservative based story that you care deeply about. I'm sure many here will try to point out examples that challenge my perspective, and I'd be happy to hear of them.

If you let different perspectives ruin your ability to enjoy film, I don't see how you will allow yourself to enjoy art of any medium. Art can be beautiful, but it should go beyond that, and say something about our world and the way we experience it. We should endeavor to understand those different perspectives, especially the ones we disagree with; not for the purpose of changing our own minds, but rather to challenge our own ideas and either shore up or mold our beliefs.

Of course, this is all my opinion, and I fully accept that. I know too many people that are so entrenched in their views that they've become angry at anyone and anything that has experienced life differently. Obviously that goes to both sides of the isle, especially these days.
Josh Z likes this.

Benjamin King

Sic Transit Gloria

BenjaminKing is offline  
post #39 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 01:36 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
p5browne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 10,204
Mentioned: 242 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4011 Post(s)
Liked: 3183
Will this improve the whole lot ? I voted for Yes.

# 1 - If Streaming Movies can now be available for an Oscar, might this now give the producers a boost to upgrade what they have to offer ?

# 2 - Paid your money, got your treats, and set up to watch, but turns out you really don't like the movie. Money wasted !

# 3 - On you home set, don't like it, change what you're watching - little monies lost !

# 4 - Going to the movies, in this day and age, when we feel we never have enough time, can be hard to come up with. At home, watch whenever, and where ever you want, and eat and drink what you want, with pauses for washroom breaks, phone calls, door bells ringing, etc.

# 5 - Problem with streaming is if you'd like a disc for what you watched. Theater movies usually become available for purchase. (Although by the numbers, this seems to becoming less of an option that the ordinary joe does - he's streaming.)

# 6 - $s - can you generate the same amount of Box Office monies, by streaming ? Why, I believe, that they want the Oscars (Which I don't watch either, and apparently the polls seem to support this as well.) to rack up theater spun movie ticket, and followup DVD sales.

UN65KS9800 - Mine
UN65HU9000 + SEK-3500U / UN75JU7100 / UN55HU7250 with SEK-3500U in UJS9000 Mod Mode / UN40J5200AF / HiSense 40H5507 - Wife's
UN55NU8000 X 2 - my 2 kids families (or should I say adults?)
p5browne is offline  
post #40 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 05:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 346
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Streaming is not cinema...

Netflix 'content' proves this...

We all have above average systems at home compared to most people (some incredible systems here) so we are well placed to do the movies justice. But notice that the only cinematic Netflix movies are those that were bought by Netflix... Movies that, generally speaking, couldn't make it in theatrical world for whatever reason (some valid) yet they tower above all Netflix original content in terms of quality and that cinematic feeling...

How is this possible? That tiny movies like Annihilation and Clovetfield Paradox dwarf ALL Netflix content, despite the billions that Netflix has poured into their shows and movies?

It's because streaming is TV. Filmmakers know it, actors know it, all of the crew and executives know it... Conciously or subconciously these movies are made for the small screen, for the distracted viewer, the people who watch in 15 minute chunks... The ipad watcher in bed, alone... This is deep in the DNA of making movies for streaming TV. Yes, they're a lot better than what TV movies used to be, but they're still TV movies... The pale in comparison to the real thing.

I hope that culturally we are able to resist conflating the two, otherwise, critics and awards givers will cave into the status of these tech companies and movies across the board will be deminished... They will start to be made with streaming in mind rather than the theatre...

Do we really want movies like Mute (Netflix), or movies like Blade Runner 2049 (cinema)? The Siege of Jadotville (Netflix) or Dunkirk (cinema)?

The choice is clear.
Uppsalaing is offline  
post #41 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 05:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gorilla Killa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Next in line for a coveted Red Button
Posts: 3,049
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1505 Post(s)
Liked: 2164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
For some of the documentaries and short films that get nominated for Oscars, the studio will put the movie in literally just one theater in Los Angeles for a week to qualify.



Which makes the whole argument itself quite ridiculous if that's all they is require.

8hz ULF TR for the masses and the Cashless. Like a BOSS


If you can't stand behind our troops stand in front of them
Gorilla Killa is online now  
post #42 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 06:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,868
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 1548
There is a paradigm shift in the entertainment industry, and "Hollywood" has to acknowledge it.

Creativity comes from many places, is financed from many sources.

The elite are afraid of change, it's a power shift that they are not ready to accept.
thehun and darknite9099 like this.
mtbdudex is online now  
post #43 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 06:33 PM
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,101
Mentioned: 442 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9171 Post(s)
Liked: 16173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorilla Killa View Post
[/B]

Which makes the whole argument itself quite ridiculous if that's all they is require.
Ridiculous, right? As if in today's day and age that's meaningful in the slightest.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum
imagic is offline  
post #44 of 79 Old 03-27-2018, 09:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, West of desert
Posts: 6,394
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2220 Post(s)
Liked: 3454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post
There is a paradigm shift in the entertainment industry, and "Hollywood" has to acknowledge it.

Creativity comes from many places, is financed from many sources.

The elite are afraid of change, it's a power shift that they are not ready to accept.
The elite buy change, it's one reason paradigm shift has become beating a dead horse for the last decade. 'Hollywood' is just a part of multi-national corporations. Creativity does not guarantee profit.

"Espresso is like tequila, when in doubt apply more shots."
tenthplanet is offline  
post #45 of 79 Old 03-28-2018, 03:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 346
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Without the theatre, there is no home theatre

Without the cinema theatre, there is no home theatre...

For those of you so in favour of TV streaming, is there any made-for-streaming movie that even comes close to Blade Runner 2049 or Dunkirk in terms of doing your system justice?

What's the point in spending the tens of thousands that we have on our home theatres, only to watch middling TV movies?!

Is there any movie made for any streaming service that comes close to even a simple, small movie like Phantom Thread in terms of artistry, acting and filmmaking?

Even a tiny, low budget (under $5million) horror movie like Get Out looks and sounds better, has better acting and is more cinematic than any and all made-for-streaming movies to date. Because it was made for theatre. The writer/director, actors and the cinematographer of Get Out are all from TV backgrounds primarily and the movie was shot on a video camera (Alexa), not on film, yet it is still cinema percisely because it was made for theatre and not for the home like most of their other work. It shows. They bring their A-game.

The choice isn't between watching movies in non-ideal theatres vs. on your high quality home theatre system... the choice is between what movies will be available to you, ones made for theatre, or movies made for ipad...

Are you guys really excited about tech giants like Netflix and Amazon to start campaigning for awards and obscuring quality filmmaking even further, deminishing the theatrical experience?

If the theatrical requirement is reduced further, the movies you will be able to stream will start to look and feel smaller, less important, less impactful... because they will be made with distracted ipad users in mind, not with a 20 metre theatre screen and 10,000s watts of audio power and a couple of hundred pair of attentive eyes and ears in mind...

This is the physical reality that these streaming companies want to obscure, because it is something they cannot deliver in their lowest cost distribution model.

I tried to watch Red Sparrow in theatre this week, but I walked out of the cinema because the track lights were so bright that they washed out the bottom third of the screen and gave the movie a blue colour cast ... I will probably rent it on iTunes and watch it on my projector at home in better quality ... But the fact remains that even a typical, non-Oscar level, movie like Red Sparrow is made to a scale and at a level that made-for-streaming movies simply do not and will not match. Why should they, when the vast majority of their users watch on their phones and in 15 minute chunks?

Without the theatre, there would be no Red Sparrow to stream... That is something worth thinking about. I still go to the cinema regularly, because i recognise this fact. I'm glad thst someone at Spielberg's level is addressing this.
Tony~M and tenthplanet like this.
Uppsalaing is offline  
post #46 of 79 Old 03-28-2018, 08:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr.G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sconi
Posts: 6,456
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1341 Post(s)
Liked: 1810
Over in the AVS Hot Off the Press thread:

Netflix films banned from Cannes Film Festival competition

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/...l-competition/
imagic and 8mile13 like this.

All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten Movies
Mr.G is online now  
post #47 of 79 Old 03-28-2018, 09:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bobby94928's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 5,661
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uppsalaing View Post
Without the cinema theatre, there is no home theatre...



Without the theatre, there would be no Red Sparrow to stream...
Is that kind of like saying "without the horse and buggy, there is no automobile?" Times change and people change with it. Not everyone is watching movies on hand held cell phones. Many have large screen displays along with superb sound systems. I recently watched the four movie set of The Hunger Games in my living room, two of them complete with Atmos sound. I watched all four in the theater as well and I can say that that there is very little difference in the enjoyment factor. I don't think anyone is promoting a television show be nominated for a movie award but a movie is a movie no matter who the producer is. Let's take, as an example, the Netflix original film, Beasts of No Nation. This is a movie, not a TV show. It feels like a movie, looks like a movie, it has film stars like a movie, it must be a movie! It actually had a limited theater release but was boycotted by major theater groups because it was also released via streaming on Netflix at the same time. Because it was theatrically released at all made it eligible for Oscar consideration. Now, lets consider the Netflix original "Okja." Same idea as the last film. Its only theatrical release was in South Korea. It was not eligible for Oscar consideration at all because of that. It is most definitely a movie just as Beasts of No Nation was. It would seem that the only difference between movies made for theater release and streaming release is who get the biggest piece of the money pie. I have a great deal of respect for the Spielberg portfolio but I can't agree with him here.....
eljaycanuck likes this.

Bobby 

bobby94928 is online now  
post #48 of 79 Old 03-28-2018, 09:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,623
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2427 Post(s)
Liked: 1418
I cannot get access to that article. I post the WP article on the subject. Aside from Netflix films also selfies are banned at Cannes...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.188a50f1eb77


..
8mile13 is offline  
post #49 of 79 Old 03-28-2018, 12:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
robnix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,220
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1017 Post(s)
Liked: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uppsalaing View Post
Without the cinema theatre, there is no home theatre...

For those of you so in favour of TV streaming, is there any made-for-streaming movie that even comes close to Blade Runner 2049 or Dunkirk in terms of doing your system justice?

What's the point in spending the tens of thousands that we have on our home theatres, only to watch middling TV movies?!

Is there any movie made for any streaming service that comes close to even a simple, small movie like Phantom Thread in terms of artistry, acting and filmmaking?

Even a tiny, low budget (under $5million) horror movie like Get Out looks and sounds better, has better acting and is more cinematic than any and all made-for-streaming movies to date. Because it was made for theatre. The writer/director, actors and the cinematographer of Get Out are all from TV backgrounds primarily and the movie was shot on a video camera (Alexa), not on film, yet it is still cinema percisely because it was made for theatre and not for the home like most of their other work. It shows. They bring their A-game.

The choice isn't between watching movies in non-ideal theatres vs. on your high quality home theatre system... the choice is between what movies will be available to you, ones made for theatre, or movies made for ipad...

Are you guys really excited about tech giants like Netflix and Amazon to start campaigning for awards and obscuring quality filmmaking even further, deminishing the theatrical experience?

If the theatrical requirement is reduced further, the movies you will be able to stream will start to look and feel smaller, less important, less impactful... because they will be made with distracted ipad users in mind, not with a 20 metre theatre screen and 10,000s watts of audio power and a couple of hundred pair of attentive eyes and ears in mind...

This is the physical reality that these streaming companies want to obscure, because it is something they cannot deliver in their lowest cost distribution model.

I tried to watch Red Sparrow in theatre this week, but I walked out of the cinema because the track lights were so bright that they washed out the bottom third of the screen and gave the movie a blue colour cast ... I will probably rent it on iTunes and watch it on my projector at home in better quality ... But the fact remains that even a typical, non-Oscar level, movie like Red Sparrow is made to a scale and at a level that made-for-streaming movies simply do not and will not match. Why should they, when the vast majority of their users watch on their phones and in 15 minute chunks?

Without the theatre, there would be no Red Sparrow to stream... That is something worth thinking about. I still go to the cinema regularly, because i recognise this fact. I'm glad thst someone at Spielberg's level is addressing this.
You don't overgeneralize much do you?

Recent movies I've seen that are Netflix Originals that hold their own against most any movie that was released in the theater: Mudbound, Hush, Okja, I Don't Feel At Home In This World Anymore. Mudbound received 4 Oscar nominations. Amazon Studios has done some good work as well, with Manchester by the Sea and The Big Sick both getting Oscar nominations. Amazon Studios also produced The Lost City of Z, Elvis and Nixon, Chi-Raq, and The Salesman, Oscar winner for Best Foreign Language Film.

The reality is that both Netflix and Amazon are producing both top tier and garbage tier movies, no differently than the major studios. I have no doubt that one of the will soon produce a visual and audio spectacle like BR2049 and Dunkirk,
thehun likes this.

Looky here!
robnix is offline  
post #50 of 79 Old 03-28-2018, 01:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,232
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by BNestico View Post
all the top awards for best picture and the like would go to stuff like the Marvel movies and whatever sold the most tickets.\
Which is how it should be for Best Picture. I really don't get how something that only a handful of people went to see can be voted best picture when star wars sells nearly 2 billion tickets and doesn't get nominated. If no one goes to see it, how can it be the best picture? The other awards wouldn't really be determined by ticket sales but best picture, for sure should be.

I think I do agree with Spielberg, for academy awards, it's in a more elite group so it needs theater distribution. If no one can see it in the theater it shouldn't get an award. Academy Awards are about going to the cinema. Streaming can have their own awards.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #51 of 79 Old 03-28-2018, 04:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 346
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by robnix View Post
You don't overgeneralize much do you?

Recent movies I've seen that are Netflix Originals that hold their own against most any movie that was released in the theater: Mudbound, Hush, Okja, I Don't Feel At Home In This World Anymore. Mudbound received 4 Oscar nominations. Amazon Studios has done some good work as well, with Manchester by the Sea and The Big Sick both getting Oscar nominations. Amazon Studios also produced The Lost City of Z, Elvis and Nixon, Chi-Raq, and The Salesman, Oscar winner for Best Foreign Language Film.

The reality is that both Netflix and Amazon are producing both top tier and garbage tier movies, no differently than the major studios. I have no doubt that one of the will soon produce a visual and audio spectacle like BR2049 and Dunkirk,
All of the better movies you mention* were theatrical releases made for cinema, not straight to streaming, which gives credence to my argument.

Especially a movie like The Lost City of Z, which was great in theatre. It gave the river and rainforrest scale. There is no way James Grey would have made that movie if he thought it would be straight to streaming, which it wasn't. This was a cinema movie.

So far, we're struggling to mention a handful of non-theatrical, straight to streaming movies that are cinematic... Yet many here seem to think that it's worth conflating straight to TV streaming movies with cinema... I simply disagree.

I doubt that in the future a straight to streaming movie will match the average cinema movie, never mind compete with Blade Runner 2049 or Dunkirk. Why would they? They would never be shown at that scale, with that level system. They've spent billions and have nothing that comes close yet. Neither does HBO, or any of the other TV providers.

Time will tell, but I hope by then we still have theatrical release films to compare these movies to and that the audiences taste won't be too deminished by settling for streaming for years...

I'm open to be proven wrong.


* Mudbound, Okjia, Manchester By The Sea, The Lost City of Z, Chi-Raq and The Salesman were all made for and released in theatre. I haven't seen the others so can't comment on their quality, or whether they had theatrical releases. I know The Big Sick has.

Equipment: Epson 9300W projector, Panasonic UB-424, AppleTV4K, Procella Audio Speakers...
Uppsalaing is offline  
post #52 of 79 Old 03-28-2018, 08:44 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,170
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4384 Post(s)
Liked: 3336
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Which is how it should be for Best Picture. I really don't get how something that only a handful of people went to see can be voted best picture when star wars sells nearly 2 billion tickets and doesn't get nominated. If no one goes to see it, how can it be the best picture? The other awards wouldn't really be determined by ticket sales but best picture, for sure should be.
Popularity is not and has never been a measure of quality, especially not of artistic quality. They are two separate things.

Moreover, ticket sales aren't even an accurate measure of popularity anymore. In today's market, movies are so heavily hyped that the majority of their ticket sales happen opening weekend, before word-of-mouth has a chance to spread. Their theatrical releases are so front-loaded that they can make tons of money regardless of whether anyone who pays to see them actually likes them. By the time word gets out that a movie is a dog, the majority of its audience has already forked over their money for it.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen made over $800 million in theaters. Do you know a single person who would claim to like that movie? Anyone at all? Of course not, it's abjectly terrible. To suggest that it should have been nominated for Best Picture simply because it made a lot of money is ridiculous.

You talk about Star Wars selling "nearly 2 billion tickets." (I don't know what world you live in where movie tickets only cost $0.50 each, but we'll let that slide.) The Last Jedi was indeed one of the top money makers last year, but judging by the online reaction, it seems like just as many people haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaated it as liked it. The backlash against that movie is enormous.

Further, if the only criteria for Best Picture were box office gross, why would we need more than one nominee at all? The movie that had the highest gross would automatically be the winner. The result would be determined ahead of time. What would even be the point of having a contest?

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #53 of 79 Old 03-29-2018, 08:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
BNestico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Elysburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 782
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 293 Post(s)
Liked: 336
Like I said before, if they picked winners at the Oscars based on what’s popular it would be just like the Grammys, and the Grammys suck. I like the fact that the Academy doesn’t water down the awards like the Golden Globes and give awards based on genre. (Drama, Comedy or Musical, etc.)


We’re also forgetting that the reason we spend our hard earned money one this gear we buy is for the theater experience at home. The vast majority of people watching these straight to Netflix movies are watching them with tv speakers or iPads with earbuds, not the same.
BNestico is online now  
post #54 of 79 Old 03-29-2018, 10:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
sjschaff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alameda, CA
Posts: 575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Follow the money

The board of governors and those in the industry who have a vote in the Academy should and will decide this. If it is to their financial advantage, they'll move in that direction, and not keep their collective heads in the sand. And opening up the number of venues for jobs and revenue streams will drive them to seek to expand, by any reasonable means, the ways in which their work gets developed, produced and ultimately seen by the public. So, I'd say following Spielberg would be a strategic failure. They'll either be brought into the mainstream or become truly obsolete over time. Accommodation may come but that would only tend to demean inside vs. outside groups: we've seen how the Emmy fragmentation has demeaned the awards over time.

JVC RS500 - Stewart Firehawk - Lumagen Radiance Pro - Anthem D2V - Revel Salon speakers - SV Sound SB13 Ultra sub - Tivo/Nvidia Shield TV/Panasonic UB900


sjschaff is offline  
post #55 of 79 Old 03-29-2018, 10:46 AM
Oppo Beta Group
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 11,220
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1995 Post(s)
Liked: 1445
I don’t have a projector so the cinema is still appreciated in scope and size. Sound is better at home and I don’t have to listen to distorred 105dB previews. Recliners and seat assignments have made it enjoyable again.

The world has changed. Game of Thrones is a much more anticipated event than any recent movie opening. The miniseries is a fantastic medium for character development.

The Oscars, I care about them as much as they care about me
For quality metrics, reviews are a better resource.

- Rich

Oppo UPD-205 x 2 | UPD-203 | Sonica DAC | Emotiva XMC-1 (v3) | Revel Salon2s, Voice2, Studio2s | Benchmark AHB2 x 4 | ATI AT522NC | Velodyne HGS-15 | LG 77C9 | Lumagen 2020 | HDFury Vertex x 2
RichB is online now  
post #56 of 79 Old 03-29-2018, 10:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: KALIZUELA
Posts: 9,789
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1178 Post(s)
Liked: 1201
The "Tosscars" are just as bad as the Grammy's or GG's and it is based on "popularity" among it's voters at least when it comes to best picture , actors, and directors.

De sagittis Hungarorum libera nos, Domine!

Attention, don't read my posts if you're a snowflake or easily offended.

The Hun
thehun is offline  
post #57 of 79 Old 03-29-2018, 02:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,232
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Further, if the only criteria for Best Picture were box office gross, why would we need more than one nominee at all? The movie that had the highest gross would automatically be the winner. The result would be determined ahead of time. What would even be the point of having a contest?
SW: 2bn sales obviously, not tickets.

Right, exactly my point, there shouldn't even be nominations at least for BP. The winner would be known beforehand, but that wouldn't make for an exciting program. La La Land, no wait, Moonlight!

This line intentionally left blank.

Last edited by tomtastic; 03-29-2018 at 02:18 PM.
tomtastic is offline  
post #58 of 79 Old 03-29-2018, 02:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 3,232
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Popularity is not and has never been a measure of quality, especially not of artistic quality. They are two separate things.

Moreover, ticket sales aren't even an accurate measure of popularity anymore. In today's market, movies are so heavily hyped that the majority of their ticket sales happen opening weekend, before word-of-mouth has a chance to spread. Their theatrical releases are so front-loaded that they can make tons of money regardless of whether anyone who pays to see them actually likes them. By the time word gets out that a movie is a dog, the majority of its audience has already forked over their money for it.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen made over $800 million in theaters. Do you know a single person who would claim to like that movie? Anyone at all? Of course not, it's abjectly terrible. To suggest that it should have been nominated for Best Picture simply because it made a lot of money is ridiculous.

You talk about Star Wars selling "nearly 2 billion tickets." (I don't know what world you live in where movie tickets only cost $0.50 each, but we'll let that slide.) The Last Jedi was indeed one of the top money makers last year, but judging by the online reaction, it seems like just as many people haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaated it as liked it. The backlash against that movie is enormous.

Further, if the only criteria for Best Picture were box office gross, why would we need more than one nominee at all? The movie that had the highest gross would automatically be the winner. The result would be determined ahead of time. What would even be the point of having a contest?
Calling something the "Best" when only a handful of people actually see it is more ridiculous. Society measures success in many ways but usually whatever is the most. Financial, winning records, whatever. Yes, there are certainly going to be a percentage of those that see the best selling movie and didn't like it, but the ones that did like it and saw it multiple times are far more than anyone who saw Moonlight. Just saying, maybe they shouldn't call it Best Picture then. Call it Most Outstanding Film or something like that. But "Best", hardly.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #59 of 79 Old 03-29-2018, 03:26 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,170
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4384 Post(s)
Liked: 3336
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Calling something the "Best" when only a handful of people actually see it is more ridiculous. Society measures success in many ways but usually whatever is the most. Financial, winning records, whatever. Yes, there are certainly going to be a percentage of those that see the best selling movie and didn't like it, but the ones that did like it and saw it multiple times are far more than anyone who saw Moonlight. Just saying, maybe they shouldn't call it Best Picture then. Call it Most Outstanding Film or something like that. But "Best", hardly.
Why do you equate "Best" with "Made the Most Money"?

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #60 of 79 Old 03-29-2018, 04:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
stef2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: China
Posts: 1,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 504 Post(s)
Liked: 297
A good movie is a good movie. No matter the award or the category. I am from Canada. I do not know what Emmy means. But I know a good movie when I see one.
stef2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off