This would be a good opportunity for Netflix and Amazon and other streaming services to team up and start their own awards show.
Nor would they be able to sit through 2001 A Space Odyssey. The quality of the movie hasn't changed but the audience has.
I love betting people they can't sit through one of the best movies ever. I have yet to see some under 40 make it through.
I don't think it's age. There are plenty of older folk who used to be able to appreciate slower works — be it film, music, literature, or art — but no longer have quite the attention span for it. We appear to have managed to lower the attention span of society as a whole in the past few decades.
I kinda liked Apocalypse Now. I am not rewatching Redux, it's just too long. I have no problem rewatching the 3 extended editions of the Lord of the Ring, even one after the other.
He seems to think that Roma sticks to the letter of the law, but not the spirit and thus wants the law changed. Roma, the argument goes, had a limited token theatrical release solely to qualify it for the Oscars, but the intention was always that people where meant to see the movie on 'TV' rather than at the cinema.
A lot of non-US (and even US) films do this as well. The distributors do a limited release to qualify for the awards, and bank on it winning the awards so that they can do a wide release of an "award-winning" film.
Netflix irritates the old studio heavyweights because they basically started as a lowest-rung distributor (they used to ship rental DVDs around by mail — how entirely devoid of film business glamour!), then slowly and cleverly built themselves up into an immensely wealthy studio, thus reconstructing the tight production-distribution bond that was forbidden to the old studios. Admitting Netflix productions to Oscars is like salt in their wounds.
Cinematography and cinemas keep people give people jobs, not only while MAKING the movie (cast and crews), but for people to watch it as well. Cinemas (the actual venues) give people jobs, the crews that work there, make pop-corn, sell tickets, cleaning crews, etc.
Netflix wants us to sit on our couches and binge/rot-away . The two experiences (cinema vs netflix) are not even close.
Edit: I am not negating the usefulness of Netflix, HBO, and other online/serving platforms. But if you want to play the movies-game, you have to win it on THEIR rules. Otherwise make your own 'oscarZ' and go wild :)
There's something to be said for movie theatres as an experience or an event, but it's a stretch to argue that overcharging for popcorn and hot dogs are a public good.
Today, if I think about Hollywood, I have to think about remakes. You have to force me to watch another Marvel/DC movie, although I think they are generally very well made and I liked some characters as a kid.
Just look at the most successful Hollywood movies of 2018. There is absolutely no depth to be found here at all.
These are movies I can enjoy, but mostly while doing something on the side.
As far as depth, I can't think of a Netflix film I really remember as standing out, now Serials --I can name a bunch: The OA, Stranger Things, Haunting of Hill House, etc -- they may not have found a groove yet w/ movies but they sure have w/ original series -- though they did hit a few snags too, their Marvel world sort of fell apart, and some characters were good, some totally were lame (Iron fist esp.).
The easier route would appear to be changing the rules for the Oscars to require a wide, long, exclusive theatrical release, or some other nomenclature which will preclude streaming services, or at least cost them a significant amount of money.
If that's what he wants for the Oscars then whatever, but trying to convince people that streaming movies are technically TV sounds ridiculous. Anyway, have at it, lest it quicken the Oscar's inevitable demise.
Personally, I never really thought about the definition right now, but I think a crude definition would include something regarding runtimes since I think part of what defines a movie is its length. You can do more with additional time than a 30 or 60 minute TV episode can do. However, you can do more with a miniseries or episodic TV over the long term with regards to character development, story arcs, etc. I think the definition of a movie has to be somewhere between the individual episode and the miniseries.
By the way Hollywood almost died before when TV happened in the 60s and they survived that.
If getting people together in a room to watch is somehow important, the Oscars, Tonys, and the Opera awards should combine.
The theater experience is going to have to figure out what its USP is in the digital era. It's no longer enough to provide access to the movie.
Anecdote: my gf and her friends were gonna watch Roma on the couch until they found out it was playing at the nearest theater. They then had to devise a plan to sneak alcohol and candy into the theater, coordinate ticket purchasing using venmo, and actually head out into the rain to get there. There was a lot of buyer's remorse. Good luck, theaters.
I don't see many films in theaters because many films gain nothing by being viewed at the theater. I often see films in like Interstellar, Dunkirk, Blade Runner, etc that are an assault on the senses and have a lot to gain through theater viewing.
The question to me is- will people care? There are plenty of examples of people shirking quality for convenience.
I heard a similar argument about the (live acting) theaters. Those are still around, sure.
I mean most Netflix (and direct-to-video) films are hit and miss, but there's some good ones there.
As for your comment on voting, don't complain about how people up / downvote your stuff (I mean why do you even care?), instead, write a better comment.
Since the Academy Awards are a award by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which is an association of movie industry to promote themselves. Any organization can award whoever they like.
The question is: Should the public give them that much attention?
Heck, they couldn't even find someone willing to host what used to be a plum gig because the political climate in that tiny crowd is so toxic.
What's the exact point where something is more TV than cinema ? Does it have to be earnestly made hoping it's not seen by more people than those in the 10 limited release theaters ? Also, none of the Netflix productions was ever TV broadcast, so why call them TV ?
If not, how many theaters and days must it be? It’s a media version of the abortion debate.
Since distribution is digital now, maybe they could just align with a midsize chain and offer a "Netflix Night" once a week or something. Hell, it would probably make money.
Theatres make all of their profit off of concessions, they would jump at the chance to show a film for free.
What makes a movie a movie? Does it matter where a movie is watched? Most movies are watched on monitors/tv. If I watch Infinity War on netflix, is it not a movie? If my local theater runs a weeklong viewing of Seinfeld or Friends, does it make Seinfeld or Friends a movie?
To me it is clear that Roma, Annihilation, Birdbox, etc are movies whether they run in the theaters or not.
This seems like Spielberg is using his influence to help the old hollywood studio system maintain it's monopoly on movies and especially the major advertising day known as the Oscars.
If VR takes off in 20 years and people watch movies in VR rather than in theaters, how will the oscars distinguish "theater movies" vs "other movies"? If theaters disappear in the manner of phone booths ( a distinct possibility ), will the oscars simply shut down? I doubt that.
Both sides have interesting points and I certainly don't the answers. Maybe the answer is streaming services like netflix, youtube, etc create their own awards advertisement show?
It seems limiting to confine awards to platforms rather than the art genre. It would be like there being a music award dedicated solely for each platform - cassettes, CDs, Vinyl, Radio, Streaming, etc.
Why not have a different award? Though, not sure why people even want awards.
If we limit movies to non-streaming aren’t we going to get slim pickings and mostly infantile superhero flicks?
Sure, but the problem is that unless you live in a large city with a vibrant independent cinema scene and have a lot of free time on your hands chances are you'll never get to see them (unless they show up on a streaming service 6 month later, ironically enough).
Seriously, there was a huge gulf in quality when the best home TV was 19" NTSC 4/3. Nowadays, my picture quality exceeds that of most movie screens (except for imax). I don't see any reason to differentiate.
My point is that the difference between 2k/4k/8k is noticeable, but not significant. NTSC, at 480i, was a magnitude worse than film.
It's not Reddit and it's generally not snap votes, it's either agreeing or disagreeing with a point of view. In this case, it seems mostly disagreeing.
What's explicitly banned is complaining about downvotes and saying HN is turning into reddit.
I believe that downvoting comments that you disagree with is a terrible policy since you end up with an echo chamber where anyone with a contrary opinion gets their comment moved to the bottom of the thread and grayed out. If someone says something you disagree with, the appropriate response is to engage them in a dialog and figure out why they believe what they do, not downvote them.