
Justice Department Warns Academy over Oscar Rule Changes Threatening Netflix - rainhacker
https://variety.com/2019/politics/news/doj-oscar-rules-changes-netflix-1203178413/
======
chomp
Is Spielberg going to feel the same about Apple's streaming service? Would he
want his movies there excluded from the Oscars?

I don't have much sympathy for Netflix since you can't acquire a standalone
copy of most of their content (TV yes, but I believe to date they've yet to
release an original movie on physical media) - you must subscribe to watch the
videos. They sort of release in theaters, sometimes, whenever they feel like
it, but the majority of their content is locked into their platform. I feel
like Netflix would love for there to be zero requirements to show their movies
in theaters.

On the other side though, Spielberg is well invested into Hollywood
production, and it seems clear that he wants the Academy to shut out a huge
competitor. For some reason, I don't take anything he's saying as genuine
concern of film.

EDIT: I just thought about it. I feel like he's possibly trying to protect
standard exclusivity agreements. Check out a related story when Netflix
started a simultaneous release agreement with IPic:
[https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-
et-...](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-
netflix-ipic-20161005-snap-story.html)

The movie industry relies on theaters (and then royalties/physical media sales
to a lesser extent) to make money on their content. The theater industry wants
exclusive release windows. Netflix doesn't have either of these problems, and
that's a threat to the standard business model of the movie industry. So I
feel like that's why he's trying to push for a staggered release for Netflix,
so that Netflix has to be encumbered by the same business model he deals with.

~~~
jerf
"I don't have much sympathy for Netflix since you can't acquire a standalone
copy of any of their content - you must subscribe to watch the videos."

A requirement that it must be commonly and reasonably purchaseable as stand-
alone content on some reasonable schedule wouldn't necessarily be out of line.
"You want to win an award, you must put it out in a format that it can be
legally archived outside of your particular walled garden. We're not willing
to give an award to a movie that may not be available in 50 years."

~~~
jedberg
> We're not willing to give an award to a movie that may not be available in
> 50 years.

You know how at the end of every movie it has that MPAA registration number?
The only way to get that is to submit a copy of the film to the MPAA for
archiving. So they have a copy of every film. If the movie studio ceases to
exist, they still have at least one copy.

~~~
bilbo0s
In my own view, the people arguing that movies never available to the public
in some archive-able format should be given secondary consideration kind of
have a point. I've been to the Louvre. Several times. I've seen the Mona Lisa.
So I can make my own judgement. But if someone in, say, 1525 said, "This is
one of the greatest works of all time", and then locked it in a Vatican Vault
for the next 500 years, I should be forgiven for being skeptical. (At least
until 2025 when they brought it out from the vault. Whereupon I can make my
own judgement.)

I'm not in the movie business at all, so I'm just a regular person, but I
guess what I'm saying is, in 50 years, why do I have to just take the
Academy's word that Film X is good? They'd be saying, "Trust us. We have a
copy of it, and we've seen it. It's one of the best films ever." Which is
fine. But why can't I get it and judge for myself? Why can't I get it show it
to some friends and neighbors and talk about it? It's a legitimate issue in my
view.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
So, I was all with you folks on the "must be able to buy it outside
subscription" requirement, but this example falls _really_ flat. If you want
to go the Louvre and see the Mona Lisa, you have to buy a ticket to see it for
a day.

Netflix is selling tickets for like ten bucks to see Roma for a whole month.

~~~
swiley
Wow I kind of assumed art museums in France were free like the ones here.

~~~
DEADBEEFC0FFEE
Even free admission museums, need funding. Someone is paying.

------
tacomonstrous
While I'm sympathetic to Netflix, I'm not sure I understand why the government
is involved in deciding who should be eligible for the Academy awards.

~~~
SilasX
For analogy, what if the top 3 gaming publications ing the 90s (when Apple was
struggling) refused to review Apple-only games, in part because Apple didn't
buy ads in their magazines.

(Edit: The analogy is that they're not making it so you can't buy the games or
the platform, but excluding it from the really credible praise.)

Is that evil? Is that legitimately within the scope of antitrust?

Edit: I actually don't know. I was going to agree with you until I thought of
that comparison.

~~~
tacomonstrous
Not sure, but that might be subject to some kind of anti-cartel regulation?
But if there are 3 top gaming publications, and only _one_ of them refused to
review Apple-only games, then I don't think intervention is justified.

------
joekrill
I just don't understand how Spielberg and others can argue that there is some
appreciable difference between a "TV Movie" and "Real(?) Movie". Except for
maybe historical reasons? But they just don't make sense any more. Is there
really any major difference in the way a movie is created, acted in, etc?

People would find it absolutely ridiculous if, when CDs were introduced, the
Grammys said "Well, we only count cassette sales - you'll need your own reward
show for CDs". It's effectively the same thing, isn't it?

~~~
pfranz
The academy of motion picture arts and sciences was formed for theatrical
motion pictures. The Academy Awards was created specifically to promote
theatrical motion pictures. If I got the summary of Spielberg's letter
correct, the Emmys were designed to promote Television works.

Sure, you can say that's historical and they're out of touch. But he's on the
board for that organization and that's their goal. Those lines might not be
there for the average person, but the organizations (and flow of money) is
still structured that way.

Netflix is doing the minimum to co-opt the prestige of the Academy Academy
(which, everyone knows is a joke but still take seriously) so they can take
that prestige to promote their own streaming service.

------
threatofrain
> The letter came in response to reports that Steven Spielberg, an Academy
> board member, was planning to push for rules changes to Oscars eligibility,
> restricting movies that debut on Netflix and other streaming services around
> the same time that they show in theaters. Netflix made a big splash at the
> Oscars this year, as the movie “Roma” won best director, best foreign
> language film and best cinematography.

------
lr
The Academy Awards are for "movies" that are to be projected onto a screen in
a movie theatre. Netflix has chosen to not play by the rules that govern that
way of distributing a film. There is no antitrust in this case. Now, if the
MPAA made agreements with theatre operators to prevent Netflix from showing
its movies in any movie theatre (which would then disqualify Netflix from
being eligible for an Oscar), then that would be antitrust.

[Edited last sentence for further clarify.]

~~~
fmajid
As the article mentions, the movies were shown in theaters precisely to make
them eligible for the Oscars.

------
IronWolve
If apple and google can deny competitors from using their stores, Why can't
Hollywood deny streaming services?

~~~
gbear605
The idea is that the Oscars have a monopoly on film awards, but Apple and
Google don’t have a monopoly on app stores. Now that’s very debatable, but the
EU is investigating both them, so we’ll see what happens.

------
the_watcher
Spielberg's efforts are ridiculous and transparently self-serving, but how is
there an anti-trust case here? Awards like this are given by private
organizations who can set their own criteria. Not being eligible for an Oscar
doesn't stop films from being made.

~~~
lostmyoldone
I believe the issue is that Oscars is perceived in a way by the public that
could make it anti competitive to exclude certain film makers, especially if
rules change so they just happen to match exactly one company, one which is
seen as a threat to the status quo by at least some of the incumbents.

Essentially, if you claim to hold a competition open to everyone fulfilling
certain criteria, and it becomes valuable due to marketing ( competition ) to
participate, then you will have to accept some government scrutiny of rule
changes to ensure they are not anti competitive.

------
RickJWagner
I am in favor of anything that disrupts Hollywood.

It's full of prima donnas, run by the likes of Harvey Weinstein, and entirely
too self-important. If Netflix rocks the boat, more power to them.

