| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector the Pup wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Hector the Pup wrote: | I just don't get it. I spent a lot time in the business . It should be very simple.
Did you make a movie?
Is it good?
HBO was killing it a million years ago. Barbarians at gate is still one of my favorites . |
Well, I understand why they need to draw a line in the sand. I mean, there are countless amateur films made, TV movies, all the thousands of silly youtube, vimeo, and facebook videos, it would just be impossible to vet them all.
So it makes sense to draw a line, and they have. Spielberg just thinks the line isn’t far enough. |
Amateur films and social media videos have nothing to do with multimillion dollar projects for large scale media platforms like Netflix. |
What I’m saying is they need to draw the line in the sand somewhere. Otherwise, there is no distinction between a film made by my friends and I on Youtube and one with a multi-million dollar budget. It’s not as sinple as saying “Did you make a movie and was it good” because in order to know if any movie was good you have to watch it.
They can’t review ALL movies produced in a calendar year. They have to create some reasonable boundaries. And they have. I think the boundaries they have specified for what defines an eligible movie for Oscar consideration is fine even if Spielberg doesnt agree.
Those boundaries include length, some distribution rules, and some quality rules (the tech used to create the movie). |
Clerks, Blair witch and many others were made on shoestring budgets. And yes you can watch every movie made In any year. We had 6 people and between us we didn't miss anything feature length that didn't already have distribution. Most of them suck. If no story is established In the first 10 minutes it's a pass. If there's something salvageable then depending on how you're watching you either fast forward or skip to the next reel.. |
From every country too? Anyway, I’m just saying there has to be some standard. Looks like you guys had a standard set involving length of the film.
I have no issues with the standards set by whoever determines eligibility for the Oscars. I think its fine the way it is and don’t agree with Spielberg on the matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Festivals have simple rules for submission. For features it's just length. They apply the same methods I did. The source doesn't matter. Only the product. Again. Is it a movie? Is it good? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Hector the Pup wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Hector the Pup wrote: | I just don't get it. I spent a lot time in the business . It should be very simple.
Did you make a movie?
Is it good?
HBO was killing it a million years ago. Barbarians at gate is still one of my favorites . |
Well, I understand why they need to draw a line in the sand. I mean, there are countless amateur films made, TV movies, all the thousands of silly youtube, vimeo, and facebook videos, it would just be impossible to vet them all.
So it makes sense to draw a line, and they have. Spielberg just thinks the line isn’t far enough. |
Amateur films and social media videos have nothing to do with multimillion dollar projects for large scale media platforms like Netflix. |
What I’m saying is they need to draw the line in the sand somewhere. Otherwise, there is no distinction between a film made by my friends and I on Youtube and one with a multi-million dollar budget. It’s not as sinple as saying “Did you make a movie and was it good” because in order to know if any movie was good you have to watch it.
They can’t review ALL movies produced in a calendar year. They have to create some reasonable boundaries. And they have. I think the boundaries they have specified for what defines an eligible movie for Oscar consideration is fine even if Spielberg doesnt agree.
Those boundaries include length, some distribution rules, and some quality rules (the tech used to create the movie). |
Clerks, Blair witch and many others were made on shoestring budgets. And yes you can watch every movie made In any year. We had 6 people and between us we didn't miss anything feature length that didn't already have distribution. Most of them suck. If no story is established In the first 10 minutes it's a pass. If there's something salvageable then depending on how you're watching you either fast forward or skip to the next reel.. |
From every country too? Anyway, I’m just saying there has to be some standard. Looks like you guys had a standard set involving length of the film.
I have no issues with the standards set by whoever determines eligibility for the Oscars. I think its fine the way it is and don’t agree with Spielberg on the matter. |
Yes. Every country. I'm not joking. I was watching 10 movies a day. At a minimum.
Finnish dark comedies
? Yup. Iranian docudrama? Yup. Every horror movie out of any Asian country? That too.
It put me off watching movies for a while. The stuff that makes it to theaters no matter how bad it can be is so much better than the stuff that doesn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh i have no doubt about that. But, I’m not sure the Academy wants to be doing that so thats probably why they have those standards in place. Netflix isn’t banned, so long as they play their content in a commercial movie theater for like a week at least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The basic standard is It a movie and is it good . It shouldn't matter if it's from Netflix paramount or Joe shmoe on the corner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector the Pup wrote: | | The basic standard is It a movie and is it good . It shouldn't matter if it's from Netflix paramount or Joe shmoe on the corner |
And it doesn’t matter who it is from, even currently. Although, there are other requirements, but who it is from is not one of them I believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Who made it is irrelevant. If it's a good movie then it's a good movie. There was a time when people thought that only major networks could make good tv shows. The content matters more than the source. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rwongega
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 20510
Location: UCLA -> NY
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Films that, in any version, receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than
as a theatrical motion picture release will not be eligible for Academy Awards in any category.
Nontheatrical public exhibition or distribution includes but is not limited to:
Broadcast and cable television
PPV/VOD
DVD distribution
Internet transmission
Motion pictures released in such nontheatrical media on or after the first day of their Los Angeles
County qualifying run remain eligible. Also, ten minutes or ten percent of the running time of a
film, whichever is shorter, may be shown in a nontheatrical medium prior to the film’s qualifying run. |
http://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/89aa_rules.pdf
_________________
http://media.giphy.com/media/zNyBPu5hEFpu/giphy.gif
http://bartsblackboard.com/files/2009/11/The-Simpsons-05x18-Burns-Heir.jpg
RIP Jonathan Tang
RIP Alex Gruenberg
Free KBCB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector the Pup wrote: | | Who made it is irrelevant. If it's a good movie then it's a good movie. There was a time when people thought that only major networks could make good tv shows. The content matters more than the source. |
No one is disputing that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well, Canes has banned Netflix from competing for Awards too.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/netflix-films-can-no-longer-compete-at-cannes-film-festival/ar-BBKGcMX?OCID=ansmsnnews11
| Quote: | Netflix has been canned from Cannes.
The director of the prestigious Cannes Film Festival said movies distributed by the streaming service are no longer eligible to compete in future festivals.
|
| Quote: | .............."Last year, when we selected these two films, I thought I could convince Netflix to release them in cinemas. I was presumptuous, they refused," he said.
According to THR, Netflix attempted to screen the films in France for a few days ahead of the festival, but were unable to due to the country's "strict chronology laws."
After the disagreement, Cannes now requires movies to have some sort of theatrical release in France, barring Netflix from eligibility. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chronicle
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 31935
Location: Manhattan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
inb4 netflix starts its own awards
_________________
Kobe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why doesn't Netflix just distribute some of its better movies to some independent theaters? Is there a minimum # of venues to qualify? Is there a minimum length of release? Let's say its 100 venues and a minimum of two weeks. If Netflix wants the publicity of an Oscar nomination, I'm sure it would pay that.
Edit - I believe this same point was raised in the first few posts of the thread. The problem is, where is the bar then set? If the minimum threshold is too low for Spielberg and his like, how high do you have to make it before adversely affecting films that have low distribution, didn't originate from Netflix, but are still Oscar worthy?
Seems like an arbitrary distinction at this point. Its like the people who made the original silent films saying the "talkies" shouldn't qualify for awards because it cheapens the art. No, it expands the art and challenges the establishment to evolve, or get out of the way. Doesn't Spielberg have an ownership share of one of the large theater companies (like AMC or Arclight?)... I smell conflict of interest here too.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenBeckerman
Star Player
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 2060
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^Netfilx does do theatrical runs. All of their GG, Oscar contenders and winners all had qualifying theatrical runs, as well as any other title that Netflix would like to have consideration for nomination. It's also one of the negotiating points of new acquirement's that Netflix offer a short theatrical run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
^I know, seems you only read the first part of my post.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenBeckerman
Star Player
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 2060
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i think you edited it brah |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drifts
Retired Number
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Posts: 28374
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I love Netflix and the rich content they provide... but seriously, Spielberg has a point. It's just up to the Academy to weigh this thing over.
_________________
"Now, if life is coffee, then the jobs, money & position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold & contain life, but the quality of life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Drifts wrote: | | I love Netflix and the rich content they provide... but seriously, Spielberg has a point. It's just up to the Academy to weigh this thing over. |
I don't think Spielberg has a very good point at all. His point wasn't that the standards aren't strict enough.
His point was that even though Netflix is meeting the standards set forth by the academy, that, Netflix should still be deemed ineligible. That doesn't make any sense.
I think it would have made more sense to argue that he believes the standard for eligibility should be raised, rather than saying that even those who qualify should arbitrarily not qualify. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakersRGolden
Star Player
Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 7924
Location: Lake Forest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Slight one week theatrical window"
"I don't believe that films that are given token qualifications in a couple of theatres for less than a week should qualify"
Sounds like he's saying the qualification bar is set to low. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
