Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Movies
Byrne Robotics > Movies Page of 2 Next >>
Topic: Spielberg Speaks Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 114414
Posted: 02 March 2019 at 11:13am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

And I Agree
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12589
Posted: 02 March 2019 at 11:48am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

Steven Spielberg was one of the backers of the Screening Room, an attempt to create a streaming service that would have streamed films at home on the same day as a theatrical release. I'm curious as to what distinction he is drawing, because I can't find anything where he's asked to address that. From his comments, all I can gather is that he thinks filmmakers wouldn't have to work as hard to find financing for a theatrical release. I can see how that would be disruptive to the current model, but I'm not sure why that would matter for an award.

There's a little bit of irony in that the Academy sends its members DVD screeners (soon to be discontinued and replaced with digital streams) in order to vote on the movies. A lot of the voters are using a TV format to judge the film.


Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 114414
Posted: 02 March 2019 at 12:08pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Steven Spielberg was one of the backers of the Screening Room, an attempt to create a streaming service that would have streamed films at home on the same day as a theatrical release. I'm curious as to what distinction he is drawing, because I can't find anything where he's asked to address that. From his comments, all I can gather is that he thinks filmmakers wouldn't have to work as hard to find financing for a theatrical release. I can see how that would be disruptive to the current model, but I'm not sure why that would matter for an award.

•••

You have a real talent for missing the point. A movie that debuts on a streaming service on the same day as its theatrical release is not being shown first solely on the streaming service. See? Pretty simple.

A movie is a movie, a TV show is a TV show. Spielberg himself directed one of the best TV movies, DUEL, and I don’t remember him grumbling when it wasn’t nominated for any Oscars. (And it was released theatrically overseas.)

Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12589
Posted: 02 March 2019 at 12:28pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

You have a real talent for missing the point. A movie that debuts on a streaming service on the same day as its theatrical release is not being shown first solely on the streaming service. See? Pretty simple.

-----

The films that Spielberg is complaining about are not being shown first solely on the streaming service either. They follow the same rules that any other movie does to qualify for the Oscars: screen in a theater in LA County for seven consecutive days.

That's the rule. Spielberg is arguing that despite the streaming films qualifying under the rule, they should not count.  It should also be pointed out that Spielberg himself has benefited from this rule, like when THE POST was nominated for a 2018 Oscar for screening in 9 theaters in the last two weeks of 2017.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Petter Myhr Ness
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 2993
Posted: 02 March 2019 at 12:29pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

I agree too. Frankly, it seems like a no-brainer.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12589
Posted: 02 March 2019 at 1:08pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

It also bears noting that the movies being discussed, like MUDBOUND and ROMA, were not produced for Netflix. These are not made-for-TV movies. They were traditional film productions that were shown at festivals and bid on by distributors. It just happened that the winning bidder was Netflix.

If two films meet the same qualifications, does a business model (distribution) have any bearing on a creative award?





Back to Top profile | search
 
Doug Centers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 February 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 3585
Posted: 02 March 2019 at 3:03pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

I agree with Spielberg on this point. There will always be those that will find the loopholes in any type of competition to gain an advantage. Even though they are playing by the current rules it is not in the spirit of the award Along with some other things already stated the Academy needs to tighten up the parameters.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 32914
Posted: 03 March 2019 at 1:01am | IP Logged | 8 post reply

 Michael Roberts wrote:
If two films meet the same qualifications, does a business model (distribution) have any bearing on a creative award?

I don't think so.  This is a case of an awards show that was created over 90 years ago crashing headlong into the current reality of how people consume content.  It's a microcosm of what is going on in entertainment as a whole.  Given the fact, as Michael points out, that a vast majority of Academy voters make their choice after watching the nominated movies at home instead of in a theatre puts the lie to any sort of special dispensation a film gets from having to first be shown in a theatre to me.  And even then, Netflix has adhered to the rules and did what they were supposed to do in order to receive consideration.  

Personally, I don't consider a film created to be theatrical in nature that is bought by a streaming service somehow changing that designation to be "made for TV".  It wasn't.  And that's not semantics. The aforementioned DUEL was specifically meant to be made for television. Spielberg was a hired gun on a project that was already greenlit by ABC for their "Movie of the Week" series before he signed on as director. ROMA, as THE BIG SICK before it, were films already completed and making the festival circuit in hopes of being picked up by a distributor.  They were, but it was Netflix and Amazon (respectively) that purchased them.  

I see this argument as being similar to the old guard argument that filming digitally instead of on film stock somehow made the former "less than" the latter or, simply put, not a real movie.  We can argue all day long about what we like to see and how warm stock feels as opposed to digital, but that doesn't change the definition of what constitutes a film and it certainly doesn't mean one can't be created using any of a number of different media. 

Spielberg's argument feels like Grandpa Simpson to me, but then again I've been an early adopter my entire life: home video games and a VCR in the late 70s when many were only beginning to understand what they were, to message boards and the internet at a time when most of my friends thought it was a fad, to DVD (and then Blu-ray and then digital) long before they were mainstream, and a subscription to Netflix when they had less than 3 million subscribers. I was at a dinner with my wife, then a Netflix employee, and Ted Sarandos, now Chief Content Officer at Netflix and her boss at the time, at the original Barney's Beanery in WeHo (not a fancy place, mind you) whereupon we celebrated 5 million subscribers.  So I'm predisposed to accept changes in the landscape and roll with them.  I actually enjoy them!  Doesn't seem as though Spielberg feels the same way at least in this particular instance. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 114414
Posted: 03 March 2019 at 8:59am | IP Logged | 9 post reply

Turn it around. If an Oscar winning movie is shown on TV--as most are--should it then be eligible for an Emmy?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rick Senger
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8243
Posted: 03 March 2019 at 11:16am | IP Logged | 10 post reply

The specifics of Roma being made and intended as a cinematic movie as opposed to TV movie are one thing and it should qualify for Oscar consideration for that reason.  However, I get the argument that there needs to be a clearer distinction between content for television and content for the big screen and how we reward / recognize that content.  In the past it was generally obvious that one was one and the other was the other but streaming services like Netflix (which I adopted more than a decade ago myself and enjoy as well) are going to be blurring that line with increasingly common frequency, particularly as Netflix and Amazon invest in dozens and dozens of their own produced shows and movies each year going forward.

It used to be that budgets and time and production value easily differentiated a tv movie and something made by the Big Five.  Now, however, Netflix and Amazon are behemoths who can match studio budgets and they seem to have decided that it's worth the investment of time and money to compete in order to add legitimacy and lustre to their names. I absolutely welcome that and I doubt there are many who don't.  Improved commitment to content makes us all winners. 

However, I think the larger concern most of us are thinking without having said it is the overall demise of the cinematic movie experience.  Amazon and Netflix are direct threats to that venerable arm of entertainment and the threat is only going to increase based on the economics of the model, which is beginning to see Americans really adopting the home entertainment experience as an ever-bigger choice of consumption each year.  Last year's overall movie grosses were the highest ever but accounting for inflation and ever increasing overseas ticket sales, the numbers paint a much grimmer story in the US.  Our tvs are bigger and more HD and cheaper than ever and movie theater prices are higher than ever and Americans aren't blind.  It somehow feels like giving Oscars to Netflix's ROMA, which was only in the theater for a short time, exacerbates that demise.  The irony is that ROMA's gorgeous cinematography really demands to be seen on a large screen.  It's anything but a TV movie.

The full answer is a much longer conversation but for me, the first step is sharpening the distinction between "movie theater movies" (Oscars) and "tv movies" (Emmys) by defining how accessible they are to the movie-going public.  in order to qualify for an Oscar, every movie candidate should be required to screen for an extended time in more theaters (not just LA for a week, the current Oscar rule.)  And Netflix isn't the only company guilty of doing short runs in order to qualify; the studios are also guilty of screening some of their super-arty movies at times just in LA and NY for short stretches to check the nomination requirement boxes. They, too, should have to make any movie they want to be Oscar-nominatable more available to the general public for a longer period of time.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8044
Posted: 03 March 2019 at 1:17pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

The films winning Oscars are in compliance with the current rules. A film should not be penalized for the distribution deal it is or is not able to make upon completion. A well-made film is a well-made film, regardless of who buys it and in which viewing platform it is presented. 

The flip doesn't work. If ABC wanted to try running "The ABC Sunday Night Movie of the Week: Schindler's List" for Emmy contention, they'd  be putting up a rerun and not original content. Running a "director's cut" with additional footage to pad the run time would not sufficiently alter the product from what it was in the theater. If a potentially Oscar worthy film debuts on television and wants to be nominated for an Emmy instead, it would already qualify under the existing rules. If it wants to compete for the Oscar, the means are in place for it do so as well.

Again, it's not the film-makers' fault the deal brokers sell their work to Netflix rather than Paramount. As far as they were concerned, they were making a film and giving it their all. Their efforts shouldn't be short-changed because the marketplace is different today.

The purpose of awards is to recognize superb work, not to celebrate or punish distribution deals. Spielberg is yelling at clouds.


Edited by Brian Hague on 03 March 2019 at 1:17pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 114414
Posted: 03 March 2019 at 1:44pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Speaking from your long experience in the motion picture industry...

Incidentally, SCHINDLER’S LIST would not be a “rerun” in that format. You know, as long as we’re not penalizing...

Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Rhodes
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3008
Posted: 04 March 2019 at 11:29am | IP Logged | 13 post reply

Spielberg is yelling at clouds.

The last 10 years, I've been going to the movies more than ever, which, for me, is maybe 5 -10 times a year.  For the most part, my home system is fairly powerful and immersive and gets it done, but, when there's a BIG movie I want to see...or heck, sometimes, just to get OUT of the house, it's nice to have good, local theater to go to. 

As expensive as the movie-going experience has become, it's still less so than many other excursions: live theater, concerts, spectator sports...fancy dinners out...

If you aren't into these things, or going to the movies, then maybe none of this makes any difference. 

But, it seems we're headed toward eventually not having (many) theaters around anymore, especially if there are less reasons movies have to be released thru them. 

10 years from now, when you're excited about seeing a big, blockbuster movie that's coming out...and it's come to pass that your only option is to watch it at home...would Spielberg have been "yelling at clouds" then?



Edited by Brian Rhodes on 04 March 2019 at 11:34am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12589
Posted: 04 March 2019 at 11:50am | IP Logged | 14 post reply

10 years from now, when you're excited about seeing a big, blockbuster movie that's coming out...and it's come to pass that your only option is to watch it at home...would Spielberg have been "yelling at clouds" then?

——

Once again, Steven Spielberg was a stakeholder in Sean Parker’s Screening Room, an attempt to provide home streaming of movies for $50 for new releases. “Think of the theaters” doesn’t seem to be part of the argument he’s making. 

I’d argue that Screening Room would have been a bigger potential danger to the theaters than Netflix with regard to blockbuster movies. Action and superhero movies are what’s still driving people into theaters these days. Netflix doesn’t have the pockets to compete with the 500 million and up box office of the Marvel movies.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Rhodes
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3008
Posted: 04 March 2019 at 12:34pm | IP Logged | 15 post reply

Once again, Steven Spielberg was a stakeholder in Sean Parker’s Screening Room, an attempt to provide home streaming of movies for $50 for new releases. “Think of the theaters” doesn’t seem to be part of the argument he’s making. 

Even as a side-effect, this current position could be a step in helping to keep theaters in the mix. So, rant on, Abe. 

I wish Lucas would have kept yelling at the "original-films-are-works-of-art-that-shouldn't-be- altered-in-any-way" cloud like he did 30 years ago. 



Edited by Brian Rhodes on 04 March 2019 at 12:41pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Rick Senger
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8243
Posted: 04 March 2019 at 4:26pm | IP Logged | 16 post reply

Once again, Steven Spielberg was a stakeholder in Sean Parker’s Screening Room, an attempt to provide home streaming of movies for $50 for new releases. “Think of the theaters” doesn’t seem to be part of the argument he’s making.
*****
"I love to go to a regular movie theater, especially when the movie is a big crowd-pleaser.  It's much better watching a movie with 500 people making noise than with just a dozen."
 
"I feel there is no substitute for going out to the movies.  There is nothing like it... every time I go to a movie, it's magic, no matter what the movie's about."

"Money to me is not a factor in my life...I'm not really interested in making money."

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/steven_spielberg

If you think Spielberg doesn't care about the theater going experience or that this is a selfish commerce grab on his part, you don't know what you're talking about.  You need to read past the three paragraph internet summaries you've apparently decided are the be-all on the subject.  They're not.

The $50 home streaming of movies model (which was pitched but has been as good as dead for years) was largely intended to capture generally upscale people or large families who are not going to the movies for various reasons (usually the time and hassle, particularly on an opening weekend when managing attendance can be problematic.)  That model also included two movie tickets to go see the film in the theater, so the theater going experience was very much part of the package.

SS is already worth multiple billions of dollars and through the years has consistently shown concern and interest in preserving the movie theater going experience.  He donated generously to get the then-dilapidated Egyptian Theater in Hollywood restored.   He's done the same for other film venues over time.   This isn't about him trying to de-fang what you perceive to be a competitor to him.  There is no "screening room" so he has no skin in that game.  He does, however, have a longstanding and unswerving love for and desire to preserve the experience of going to the movies despite what you seem to have mind read on your own time. 


Edited by Rick Senger on 04 March 2019 at 4:28pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12589
Posted: 04 March 2019 at 4:36pm | IP Logged | 17 post reply

If you think Spielberg doesn't care about the theater going experience or that this is a selfish commerce grab on his part, you don't know what you're talking about. 

——-

Regarding mind reading, please point out where I stated either of these things. I’ll be here waiting. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12589
Posted: 04 March 2019 at 4:49pm | IP Logged | 18 post reply

This isn't about him trying to de-fang what you perceive to be a competitor to him.  There is no "screening room" so he has no skin in that game.  He does, however, have a longstanding and unswerving love for and desire to preserve the experience of going to the movies despite what you seem to have mind read on your own time.  

——

Re: Mindreading. Please point out where I stated any of these things as well.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rick Senger
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8243
Posted: 04 March 2019 at 5:01pm | IP Logged | 19 post reply

"Once again, Steven Spielberg was a stakeholder in Sean Parker’s Screening Room, an attempt to provide home streaming of movies for $50 for new releases. “Think of the theaters” doesn’t seem to be part of the argument he’s making."

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12589
Posted: 04 March 2019 at 5:31pm | IP Logged | 20 post reply

"Once again, Steven Spielberg was a stakeholder in Sean Parker’s Screening Room, an attempt to provide home streaming of movies for $50 for new releases. “Think of the theaters” doesn’t seem to be part of the argument he’s making."

-----

Yes, that's exactly what I said. It still doesn't state or imply anything that you suggested. 

ETA: I need to get to somewhere before it closes in 45 minutes, but I can outline what I /did/ say when I get back.


Edited by Michael Roberts on 04 March 2019 at 5:43pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Joseph Greathouse
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 August 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 499
Posted: 05 March 2019 at 12:26pm | IP Logged | 21 post reply

Okay, I am sorry that I am missing the point as to why Roma shouldn't be eligible for an award. I feel like I shouldn't be missing something.  Here is what I understand...

Roma had a 3 week theatrical debut (opening Nov 21) prior to going to Netflix (on Dec 14).

Prior to that, Roma had been a darling of many film festivals all around the world being back in August. 

As to Oscar criteria, it follows...
  • Must have a running length of more than 40 minutes
  • Have been exhibited theatrically on 35mm or 70mm film, or in a qualifying digital format
  • Must open in a commercial theater, for paid admission, in Los Angeles County between January 1 and midnight December 31, and run for seven consecutive days, at least three screenings daily (one of which needs to be between 6 PM and 10 PM)
  • Be sufficiently advertised in Los Angeles media
  • Films that receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture release are not eligible for Academy Awards in any category
  • Official screen credit forms and copies of the main and end title credits must have been submitted to the Academy by December 1
So, I don't get why people feel that Roma took advantage of the rules. As I understand it, there have been many Christmas Day releases that have had a smaller release window than Roma and so I am not sure why those should count if Roma should not?

So help me, what am I missing?

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 114414
Posted: 05 March 2019 at 2:29pm | IP Logged | 22 post reply

Tangent, but vaguely related: Amazon has announced a new “original series,” HANNA, based on the movie of the same name. But that means it’s not “original” doesn’t it?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Joseph Greathouse
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 August 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 499
Posted: 05 March 2019 at 3:24pm | IP Logged | 23 post reply

Depends on where they placed the comma.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 114414
Posted: 05 March 2019 at 3:54pm | IP Logged | 24 post reply

What comma?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rick Senger
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8243
Posted: 06 March 2019 at 12:28pm | IP Logged | 25 post reply

I can't think of a Best Picture nominee that only had a few weeks in the theater over the course of its entire run.  For me that's the crux of the issue, accessibility.

Plenty of prior Best Pic noms only had a few weeks in the theater when they were initially released at the end of their eligible year but that was usually because the studios wanted them to be the last pics released that year so as to be the freshest in the Oscar voters minds.  Those movies then would have generally good continued runs well into the next year.  THE POST, a movie Michael Roberts above cites as Spielberg "benefiting from this rule" in fact stayed in the theaters well into April the following year, meaning it was in general release for 105 days total, not just a few weeks.  And whereas ROMA only had some dozens of screens (not sure of the total nor of the attendance because Netflix won't release the figures, but it is low), THE POST at its height was released on 2,851 screens, meaning it was widely accessible. ROMA was not.

Not to put words in Spielberg's mouth, but I am guessing this is part of the rules changes he will be discussing with the Oscar committee.


Edited by Rick Senger on 06 March 2019 at 12:31pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

Page of 2 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login