Steven Spielberg Demands Netflix Get Off His Damn Lawn
from the swimming-upstream dept
We've noted for years that there's a certain segment of the media and entertainment industry that despises Netflix. Some of this is based on a disdain for Netflix coming to town and throwing oodles of cash around, but a larger chunk is driven by those who simply don't like change but can't admit as much. A good example of that later motivator has been the Cannes film festival, which recently banned Netflix from participating in the awards.
When asked to explain why, festival head Thierry Fremaux couldn't really provide a solid answer, but did infer that what Netflix does can't be considered good because it doesn't adhere to traditional and often counterproductive business tactics (like antiquated release windows):
"The Netflix people loved the red carpet and would like to be present with other films. But they understand that the intransigence of their own model is now the opposite of ours,” Thierry Fremaux said."
This idea that Netflix is "demolishing tradition" runs deep in many entertainment industry circles. There's this pervasive belief that if you (gasp) allow longstanding entertainment and film industry models to change, you'll kill tradition and the inherent nobility of traditional film. Again, you usually won't see a whole lot in terms of hard data in these arguments; just these vague, nebulous charges that Netflix and other streaming services -- despite increasingly winning their own awards for programming -- are somehow disrupting the sanctity of traditional business models.
This disorder flared up again last week when reports emerged that Steven Spielberg planned to pressure the Academy to ban streaming services like Netflix from receiving any future awards:
"Spielberg, a current governor of the Academy’s directors branch, plans to propose changes to Oscars eligibility rules, arguing films that debut on streaming services or get a short theatrical run should qualify for the Emmys instead of the Oscars, according to IndieWire.
“Steven feels strongly about the difference between the streaming and theatrical situation,” an Amblin spokesperson told IndieWire. “He’ll be happy if the others will join [his campaign] when that comes up [at the Academy Board of Governors meeting]. He will see what happens."
Again, you'll notice in the stories covering this subject that little to no actual effort is made to explain why this should happen, just a vague, meandering argument that these services somehow upset the sanctity of the traditional film industry and the brick and mortar "theater experience." Often you'll see claims that streaming services are killing traditional theaters, but data usually doesn't support that claim. A recent study found that young viewers who stream a lot of content at home are more likely to go see films at the traditional, brick and mortar theaters Spielberg claims Netflix is somehow destroying.
Meanwhile, many of the things Netflix has disrupted needed disrupting, like dated release windows that no longer serve a functional purpose, and the elimination of geographical viewing restrictions that wind up annoying paying customers. Among Spielberg's concerns is, apparently, the idea that Netflix just produces "TV movies" that shouldn't be considered high-brow enough to win an Oscar:
"Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie,” he continued. “The good show deserves an Emmy, but not an Oscar."
But Roma's performance at the Oscars rather quickly obliterated that argument, as have a number of high-profile Netflix successes over the last few years. What Spielberg's really engaged in is just vanilla protectionism driven by a fear of change.
Many were, understandably, quick to urge the Academy to open its mind to diverse opinions on this subject:
Dear @TheAcademy, This is a Board of Governors meeting. And regular branch members can’t be there. But I hope if this is true, that you’ll have filmmakers in the room or read statements from directors like me who feel differently. Thanks, Ava DuVernay. https://t.co/DFBLVWhiJj
— Ava DuVernay (@ava) March 1, 2019
Netflix also offered a fairly pointed response to Spielberg's attempt to blackball the company from awards consideration:
We love cinema. Here are some things we also love:
-Access for people who can't always afford, or live in towns without, theaters
-Letting everyone, everywhere enjoy releases at the same time
-Giving filmmakers more ways to share artThese things are not mutually exclusive.
— Netflix Film (@NetflixFilm) March 4, 2019
Does Netflix produce a lot of crap? Yes. Does the company use cash to throw its weight around? Sure. So do traditional Hollywood studios (don't tell anybody). But the laundry-list of awards that Netflix has already won make it clear Netflix isn't just some parasite. It's just a disruptive presence to yet another legacy industry that's nervous about change. If Netflix is legitimately doing stupid things then focus on those. But this idea that it shouldn't qualify for awards because it doesn't adhere to dated technological norms is just more grumbly ranting from grandpa's front porch.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: awards, hollywood, internet, oscars, steven spielberg, streaming
Companies: netflix
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Someone should call Jurassic Park and let them know they're missing their dinosaur.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Spielberg's made some great damn films.
But if he wants to tell me that, say, Ready Player One is more deserving of Oscar consideration than The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, I must respectfully disagree.
I like movie theaters too. But this all seems silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would rather see Spielberg banned
Honestly, he is long over his heyday. He needs to shut the fuck up and retire from any statements. I have watched orders of magnitude more Netflix than Speilberg related shit over my lifetime and enjoyed it enough to dislike him as a person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I would rather see Spielberg banned
I dunno, I bet the new Animaniacs will be pretty good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I would rather see Spielberg banned
Not Oscar worthy, of course. Maybe he'll go for an Emmy. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I would rather see Spielberg banned
Well, it is a TV series...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I would rather see Spielberg banned
Maybe winning an enema would be better for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I would rather see Spielberg banned
"He needs to shut the fuck up and retire from any statements."
Spielberg and Lucas used to be pretty good. Then they made it big and ever since they've been growing ever more bitter over the fact that whatever actual inspiration they had is no longer with them.
Having Spielberg whining over Netflix in some anachronistic diatribe over how Netflix doesn't merit academy recognition because they lack a physical temple in which to receive the faithful is just one more textbook example of an older-generation representative of the incumbent self-perceived elite indulging in snubbing anyone not willing to kowtow appropriately to the used-to-be-greats.
It's all sheer envy of someone who no longer has any imagination over the younger generation which still has it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I would rather see Spielberg banned
It's a fundamental truth of business -- any business -- that you adapt to changing conditions or you get run over by them and if you're really inflexible, you get plowed into the ground by them. The Cannes Film Festival and with this latest thing with Spielberg and the Oscars, the film world seems determined to get plowed into the ground by making sure they not only don't adapt to changing conditions, but make themselves increasingly less relevant in the modern world.
At one time, Spielberg was the genius newcomer who was a great innovator and visionary. Now? Now he's just another old man who hates change and screams at the neighborhood kids. Those kids haven't changed, the old man has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I would rather see Spielberg banned
"At one time, Spielberg was the genius newcomer who was a great innovator and visionary. Now? Now he's just another old man who hates change and screams at the neighborhood kids. Those kids haven't changed, the old man has."
Never trust anyone past the age of 30, eh?
Except most of the people I know are well past that and if anything, heading past the 40's seems to end up making you more tolerant.
I guess this may have something to do with Spielberg and Lucas having a cadre of sycophantic yes-men licking their asses for twenty years and ending up believing even their farts now smell of roses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moar Screenz
Maybe theater owners should work with Netflix to screen high profile movies at their establishments at the same time they're available in homes. Unless they're worried that a big screen in a dark room with lots of seats doesn't add anything to the experience. You'd think that'd give them just the opportunity they want to prove that the silver screen is superior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moar Screenz
Actually, Netflix did rent some movie theaters for a limited run so that the movie eould be eligible for Oscar nomination. (From what I read elsewhere.)
Spielberg is pissed that it worked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moar Screenz
Spielberg is just angry because Netflix refuses to wear enough pieces of flair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moar Screenz
This is a more disruptive idea than you think. Traditionally movie theaters pay insane amounts for a blockbuster movie print, and the ticket prices go towards paying that down first. Ticket revenue from other movies also goes towards paying the print price down across all movies, because when a blockbuster flops the theater is still liable for the print fee. With the advent of digital projectors, costs have strangely remained the same for prints (from what I understand, I haven't worked at a movie theater in nearly a decade now). If Netflix were to begin offering digital releases to theaters, at a cut-rate price, theaters would snatch it up. They'd have to because it just makes sense from a profit perspective. More and more they would turn to Netflix, and HBO, and other high-profile streaming services making their own content, to give them more bargaining power as the noose relaxes.
That is, if people would actually go see Netflix content on the big screen. I'm not 100% certain I would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moar Screenz
I doubt many people would care. Outside of some big franchises such as Harry Potter or Marvel, I have no idea what studio is making a movie until I see it. I would likely not know it's a Netflix movie until it started rolling, and I doubt I'm alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's really outdated and pointless? Awards shows and festivals (pardon me while I pat myself on the back because I'm so wonderful)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: old man yells at cloud
I thought old people only complained because millennials kept getting useless awards for existing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: old man yells at cloud
"I thought old people only complained because millennials kept getting useless awards for existing."
Well, in this case it's even more unforgivable. Younger generations start getting awards without observing the traditions and trappings which that older generation helped create.
Obviously viewing a movie on a home theater setup in 4k and full surround strips it of any and all artistic merit as compared to viewing it jammed into a gummed-up theater seat surrounded by whispering, slurping, crunching, coughing and monologuing people with the penchant of timing their toilet visits precisely at the point where you'd really like to be able to see what was happening on-screen.
The artists and actors have been suffering for their art, after all, and somehow it's not considered "fair" unless the audience gets their turn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: old man yells at cloud
You been under a rock? We complain about everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: old man yells at cloud
We even complain about the fact that we complain about everything. Stupid old people. Get yer own rocking chair!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: old man yells at cloud
https://goo.gl/images/X5YtHm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: old man yells at cloud
On my original post I should have used the sarcasm mark huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“We’ve always done it this way” is a piss-poor justification for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: demolishing tradition
Nonsense! We've always used that as our justification! We shouldn't change it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: demolishing tradition
Dammit! Foiled again by logic.
…wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: demolishing tradition
Tradition is what you resort to when you can't afford to do it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flight to quality
So, what's the problem if a TV movie is good enough to win an oscar?
To sum up Spielberg's argument: "Waaaaaaaaaaaah!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flight to quality
By that logic, what's the problem if a film shown on TV is good enough to win an Emmy? There are 3 solutions:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flight to quality
All of those sound fine!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Flight to quality
The first point is exactly what's happening, which means you're misrepresenting Spielberg's argument. It's not some kind of tantrum/whining; he sees Netflix as TV, which is reasonable enough, and TV movies go (arbitrarily) to the Emmies. And he probably didn't intend for Netflix to get some free publicity, but here we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flight to quality
" So, what's the problem if a TV movie is good enough to win an oscar?"
"To sum up Spielberg's argument: "Waaaaaaaaaaaah!""
You want the hallowed ceremony surrounding the traditional handover of a badly made C3P0 statuette without partaking in the traditions and trappings bringing the venerable and solemn atmosphere in which these awards have historically been carried out?
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-most-embarrassing-awards-show-moments-in-history.h tml/
The absolute NERVE of you young feckless punks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this have anything to do with Hollywood not wanting to admit they are not the only ones who can produce films spanning the range from highly popular to high art films.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it's exactly like Hollywood realizing they are not as important as they always tell themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best part of NETFLIX is the lack of advertisements
Over a quarter of each hour is spent on obnoxious advertisement by traditional cable media. That is abhorrent, given the size of their monthly subscription rate and their sub-par cable-box hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
I can't believe there are so many people who just don't get it. And you cherry-picked your story, Karl - there was a clear reasoning behind it:
Streaming =Television=Emmy
Not terribly hard to understand. And I also don't get the disdain for seeing a film in a theater. It's a wonderful experience. Just think about it this way...if we had streaming in the 1940s or 1950s, all of the movies that are considered "classics" now, from "Cool Hand Luke" to "Cinderella" to "The African Queen" to "Midnight Cowboy" would have been just 'TV-movies"...and there's just something so wrong about that idea.
Netflix has it's place in the industry. But Ted Sarandos' problem is that he refuses to try and play on the equal field already set up - he's determined to be a disruptor - he's determined to be the Mark Zuckerberg of the film industry, and apparently to be just as big as a dick to get there. So many people here on Techdirt have this incredible (and many ways deserved) disdain for the way Facebook and Google have taken over everything, pushing everyone else out of the way. What exactly do you think is the difference between those entities and Netflix?
Answer - NOTHING.
If Netflix was TRULY interested in film, they would play by the rules currently in place, and then use that foot in the door to move for more gradual changes. Instead, they come speeding through the door like a battering ram, demanding changes to the status quo that they haven't even EARNED the right to ask for, and when they don't get their way, they sulk.
And those "release windows" everyone here seem to think are so antiquated are one of the driving factors keeping independent cinema alive today. Only an indie chain like Landmark can make money showing a film in the theater that is also available on OnDemand, and for small films, there are a lot of those today. But most arthouses are either mom and pop owned or community run, and for those theaters, the release window helps ensure that they can continue to operate. The Boston area has lost A LOT of smaller theaters over the past several years because they just can't compete with streaming - that's dozens of jobs lost, and a poorer theatrical experience.
All Netflix has to do - as well as all the other streaming services like Amazon and upcoming Disney+ and Warner - to get in the awards game is agree to play by the rules already established - 90 day windows, legitimate week-long runs in NY and LA to Oscar-qualify (no "FourWalling"), and a modicum of respect that Netflix at least does not have for the way things are.
As everyone here already knows, the legacy entertainment industries are some of the most antiquated business models on the planet, but in this case, where thousands of jobs in the theatrical exhibition industry could be at stake in the not too distant future, things need to move more slowly. Take a year, cut the window to 60 days and then 45 days. Paramount's experiment with "Scout's Guide To the Zombie Apocalypse" and several other titles a few years back proved that the window can be drastically cut down and both theater and studio CAN make money that way...but it's not going to happen overnight.
And just for the record, I don't work for the film industry, but I'm a huge fan of the theatrical experience, and we work hard on our websites and podcasts to try and bring that love to others, to get them to the theater more often, to see more films. To me, the theatrical experience is special, and i'll always love it. YMMV, of course, because I know some places have only shit for theatres, or people who are shit running them. But when you find a gem of a theater, and you are in a theater full of like minded film fans watching something current unfold, or a newly remastered print of an old classic, or a Warner Brothers cartoon marathon, there's nothing that can compare to the experience...
Just my two cents...have at it, everyone...:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
Streaming =Television=Emmy
I disagree. Why is Streaming at the level of Television? Why does this disqualify it from Oscars? Oscar-winning movies get distributed on Television, after all. Cable services allow for Pay-Per-View renting of them, don't they? Does the fact that a movie was initially distributed on a streaming platform automatically make it worse? Is a movie a movie, or isn't it?
Why would a limited release window matter for an award based on how good the movie is? That doesn't improve the quality of the movie, that just limits who can see it.
See, the thing is, I do understand the reasoning in use. I find that reasoning to be flawed and incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
Why do you feel it's about "levels"? For better or worse, award eligibility is based on a TV/theater distinction; Netflix doesn't exactly fit either, but people liken it to cable TV more than movie theaters. I might think a TV series should win an Oscar, or a book should win an Emmy, but it ain't gonna happen. Don't read too much into it; there's no great reason, no great offense to be taken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
But Netflix has movies. Why is a streamed movie "television"?
It's not about offense, it's that the system doesn't make sense. If the Oscars were for movies only, and the Emmy's for TV series only, that'd be a sensible distinction. The content itself differs, and different stories are told in different ways. A TV series is long-form, a movie is short-form, there are sensible reasons to separate out the award categories because of actual limitations of format.
But no, it's about distribution method, which... Oscar-winning movies can be distributed via stream or over Cable TV, and have been. Therefore the distinction isn't based on actual content format, but on other concerns, which in my opinion have no place in an awards show which gives out awards that are based on the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Same reason TV movies are TV?
That was after they were in the theater, right? They were still "real" movies first, for people like Spielberg that believe in this distinction.
Your idea of splitting between episodic content (TV=Emmys) and non-episodic (movies=Oscars) makes a lot more sense than the splitting on first distribution method. But you ignore the reality that each awards show is propaganda to support the industry that runs the show. Why would they advertise the competitors that could one day make them obsolete?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
"Same reason TV movies are TV?"
There's many reasons for that. Which were you specifically thinking of?
"That was after they were in the theater, right? They were still "real" movies first"
So, you're saying that the method by which the movie is distributed AFTER it was made is the only factor that counts toward its quality? A movie produced for theatrical release but bought by Netflix is no longer a "real movie", while anything that plays for a single weekend in a single cinema before being streamed is somehow better quality? That's a really dumb argument.
"the reality that each awards show is propaganda to support the industry that runs the show"
Meaning that it's a damn shame that it's the distributors and not the people making the movies who are calling the shots.
"Why would they advertise the competitors that could one day make them obsolete?"
That horse has already left the stable. The answer is to compete, as they did with television, as they did with home video and all the other things they crapped their pants about before they were forced to compete. Deliberately excluding some of their own best talent from recognition because they didn't bow down seems rather short sighted and only ammunition for their competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Paul's basically said it. I only have the following to add:
"But you ignore the reality that each awards show is propaganda to support the industry that runs the show."
It bears noting that I'm not ignorant of this reality, but it's more that this is another indicator that the whole thing is a farce - which is ultimately what I was attempting to get at with my earlier statements. The awards show purports to present awards based on quality of content, but in reality restricts everything based on distribution method instead. It functions as propaganda for the distributors, and thus the reasoning of the posts and arguments I was responding to justifying the distinction remains entirely flawed. As I said before, it's not that I don't understand the reasoning, it's that the reasoning is bad.
The system doesn't make sense for what it presents itself as, and therefore there is no point in trusting it.
As for this:
Same reason TV movies are TV?
This is just as dumb. Is a movie a movie or isn't it?
The whole point is, if the awards shows that purport to give out awards based on quality of content will not adjust themselves to submission criteria that is based on actual content and not distribution methods; if they won't adapt to the current market and interests of the consumers, then they are going to die.
And the death is already occurring. Ratings for the Academy Awards have been on a steady decline for years, and the 2018 ratings hit an all-time low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
I'd just add to what's been said:
The Oscars are supposed to be awards based on the production of the films. They are not awards based on distribution. In previous years, there has been no controversy when independent movies have been picked up by smaller independent distributors and played on a handful of screens to become eligible for the awards. In fact, such deals have been roundly supported.
But, now, the exact same thing happening but with Cuaron having chosen Netflix instead of, say, A24 is suddenly beyond the pale and needs to be stopped. There's no critical or artistic reason for the controversy - it's purely about what other people can collect on the back end when films are boosted by awards.
Excluding Netflix is not a protection or celebration of filmmakers, it's telling independent filmmakers their work doesn't count if they choose a beneficial distribution deal that doesn't put money in the pockets of academy members.
There might be a different argument that people can bullshit around when things are conceived by Netflix internally, but since the film that's apparently most generated this talk was one that was bought by Netflix after it had been made, they fall flat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Unless the movie is a franchise when it can become a A Nightmare on Elm Street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Each movie is still short form. If you're going to state that the length of a series makes the major difference, you've just stated that every failed TV pilot counts as a theatrical movie, and that the Bond franchise is a TV series.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
U.S. box office down 28 percent this year, but not because of streaming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
Um, who says streaming equals television?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
So, when you stream one of Spielberg's movies, that television?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
That depends. Is it Duel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
HAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Depends where you live - Duel was a theatrical release outside the US (although it did also later get a theatrical release in the US). Meanwhile, Netflix do sometimes pick up movies for distribution that have had a theatrical release in the US but elsewhere go straight to streaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
"So, when you stream one of Spielberg's movies, that television?"
Obviously if a movie's won an academy award, by Spielberg's logic it should never be allowed to be streamed or broadcast. It'll be physical hardcopy, theater, or nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
When the difference between TV and Cinema mattered, they worked at different resolutions, which meant that TV production looked terrible on a large screen. Now they use the same technology, and TV productions could be put on in the cinema, but now run into the problem that cinemas want to show the film before it is distributed or streamed on other channels of distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
For what reason should they “play by the rules” when the “rules” will not change because of “traditionalists” like Spielberg?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
Alternately:
If Spielberg were TRULY interested in film, he would welcome new players and expressions, and laud innovation, rather than try to exclude those that have new ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
"For what reason should they “play by the rules” when the “rules” will not change because of “traditionalists” like Spielberg?"
There's a bit more to be gained from that statement. Netflix undercuts the entire route-to-market of traditional hollywood productions which rely extensively on overpricing offers squirted out in heavily regionalized dollops of sheer profit to various national cable companies over the world.
If watching ten Hollywood movies can bring a $10 profit then they are understandably miffed over netflix letting everyone, everywhere, watch their entire catalogue for a monthly fee of about the same amount. And meanwhile getting used to the idea that a theater movie is...a bit quaint without being retro enough to be considered "cool".
Netflix may have joined the MPAA but all that means is that the incumbents now get to take the bullying to the next level and whine about how Netflix isn't being as lardass-lazy as their new colleagues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
Interesting argument. It seems like you're drawing a very clear distinction between, let's say, "art house cinema" and megaplexes.
I will agree that there is probably a much better experience at the former than the latter, but that's probably as much a function of niche marketing as anything else. Heck, 2/3 of your last examples are amazing experiences based on something that is otherwise available on the small screen.
I wouldn't want to go back in time to the 40's, when studios had a stranglehold on actors and movie theaters alike. B-movies exist because of the sheer volume studios needed to produce to fill screen time. There's your TV-movie quality, your streaming quality, but 80 years ago. They had screen time to fill because they were able to literally force movie theaters to buy blocks of movies, and take the treasure with the crap.
The Golden Age of Hollywood ended sometime between when the courts broke studio monopoly on theaters and when the courts broke studio's unconscionable contracts with actors. Now people argue about what ruined movies, and the answers range from color film to TV. Despite all that, 60 years ago and more, art films still exist, and are still surrounded by a vibrant culture.
Megaplexes still sell billions of dollars worth of tickets each year. Streaming isn't erasing that. Your art films still have their niche, and streaming art films won't erase that either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
If they only thing they have to offer is that the movies aren't on Netflix (Hulu, HBO, etc) yet, then maybe they should go out of business. Make room for someone who can make the theater experience appealing for other reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Popcorn Time!
Let's hope that the punk upstarts and cranky oldsters will continue to hack at each other will rusty hooks, distracting themselves and everyone else from the fact that we're increasingly consuming their products via Popcorn Time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theater
My home theater is much nicer than driving downtown, no asshats with cellphones, a bathroom, better food and a pause button. (Also, beer.)
Perhaps Hollywood should stop trying to justify the "Theatre Experience" as some sacred cow.
Get over it - the "Big Screen" is not integral to the picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theater
Not so sure about that given the size and resolution of modern TVs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theater
I've got an Alamo Drafthouse in my neighborhood. It checks most of those boxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theater
My neighbor is an iMax theater, with the largest iMax screen in the world (by 3/4 of an inch, lol), multiple other screens as well, bar, restaraunts, etc..
Literally less than a football field away from my place.
I still watch most movies at home. Cheaper that way.
I'll splurge if I think the movie is worth it. About 5 movies a year make the cut, all else, digital purchase.
Cheaper for digital purchase than 2 tickets and no snacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theater
"I still watch most movies at home. Cheaper that way.
I'll splurge if I think the movie is worth it. About 5 movies a year make the cut, all else, digital purchase."
"Cheaper for digital purchase than 2 tickets and no snacks."
And this is what Spielberg REALLY means when he says Netflix ain't playing by the rules. It's that old story about a creaky old industry long gone to seed suddenly being outperformed by a young, vibrant and hungry competitor willing to do good work while keeping margins low. Insert images of whiny old cranks gabbling out angry tauntaun noises in a condescending tone here.
It would all be more amusing if what follows in the wake of senescent old has-beens publicly getting their knickers in a twist over the young generation wasn't usually heavy-handed lobbying for generally detrimental Red Flag Acts...like Article 13, for instance, or before that, SOPA and ACTA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You make a lot of statements without giving any evidence to support what you're claiming is true. Techdirt has addressed many of the points you're trying to make so many times that I find it hard to believe someone who has clearly been around here as long as your comment history suggests isn't aware of them.
would have been just 'TV-movies"...and there's just something so wrong about that idea -- This is the exact same problem that's being complained about with Spielberg. You act like there's something sanctimonious about this, then give no evidence as to why this would be a terrible thing. You not liking it does not make it bad.
demanding changes to the status quo that they haven't even EARNED the right to ask for -- They have to earn some non-existent "right" to pat themselves on the back with everyone else that creates artistic content of the same form as the movie producers? What kind of selfish nonsense are you talking about? If their "TV-movie" is honestly better than anything that was produced for the theater then why shouldn't they be recognized for that?
Your entire paragraph about why smaller theaters need release windows completely ignores the real issue at hand. If those theaters honestly cannot create a better experience than I can get on my home TV system at a price that enough people can afford then they are clearly not contributing to this great theatrical experience you hold so dear. If they're not contributing to that then they need to be allowed to go out of business and let someone else come in and do better.
From there you move on to insist that because jobs will be lost we can't allow innovation to move at a rapid pace. That's again more nonsense. History has proven that innovation ALWAYS results in NET job creation. Yes some employees will lose their jobs, but trying to force the system to keep those jobs will mean fewer jobs for everyone else in both the short and long runs. That's not good for anyone and definitely not healthy for the economy.
Most people here share your love for the theatrical experience. I wish I could afford to go more often. I don't however see any evidence that allowing us to watch well-made content in our homes is detracting from that at all. This article even linked you to supporting evidence that those who use more streaming services GO TO THE THEATER MORE OFTEN AS WELL.
In short, stop pretending that how you personally feel about people watching things at home instead of the theater is representative of reality. Go look at the numbers and you'll see that theater attendance is only increased by these services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I assume this was intended to be a reply to PNRCinema above?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Argh, yep. Sorry :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many...
would got a theater to see a Movie, to..
Get away from home..
the kids..
To hear GOOD audio that they cant create.. and the industry keeps limiting..with DRM..
To see a LARGE screen, and more detail...that they cant afford..
Many theaters dont make enough money from THE MOVIE..
they make it on over priced Foods, that you can ONLY get from the agencies, not the candy companies or the LOCAL store..
Why you dont goto a theater..
Mobs,
Kids,
Phones,
Crowds
no beer
Expensive food..
Cost to much for 1 moive and 2 hours...I could pay less at an arcade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny thing is, this isn’t the first time Spielberg has been against technology that changes how people watch films.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eh, it seems from that article like he was waiting on DVD because he was backing DivX, not because he was particularly enamored of sticking to VHS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't wait until a YouTube "theatrical release" wins Best Picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
Not understanding - their model is the opposite of Cannes' business model? Or their intransigence is the opposite of Cannes' intransigence? I'm inclined to think the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
O M G this might make people not give a shit about the oscars even more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Noble"
Had a hard time reading past "inherent nobility of traditional film." Steven Spielberg is taking a more forceful stand against Netflix then he did against Harvey Weinstein. These are the priorities of Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Noble"
"inherent nobility"
Yeah, tell that to Judy Garland. Spielberg's head is having a "Close Encounter" with his rear end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Noble"
My post got held for some reason (so maybe this one will too; who knows?) but I said something earlier to the effect that, while Spielberg has certainly made some wonderful films over the years, there's no way I'd consider Ready Player One to be more Oscar-worthy than The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. (I guess maybe for special effects or something.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shrug.
Hollywood is invested in the Oscars. Big show and everything, major studios put in quite a bit of money, actors a lot of effort.
What for? Because "$x Academy Awards" sells at the box office. That's why there are new categories all the time because it means more Oscars to use for box office advertisements.
Oscars given to stuff not running at the box office reduce the amount of money Oscars make for the studios. They don't want to pay good money only to state "the following Oscars went to Netflix releases".
It's really not a matter of fair and unfair and eligibility and artistry and what not.
It's a matter of an expensive advertisement show getting financed by companies who principally want to advertise their own product sales, not somebody else's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't Netflix big enough that they can produce their own "pat myself on the back" awards show and call it the Flixys or something? Open to all streaming platforms. Considering the number of streaming platforms that are starting, it should would become a threat to something like the Oscars in a not too distant future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We already had the Webbys (Wikipedia says they still exist!), and apparently I'm not making up the Streamy awards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone should call Jurassic Park and let them know they're missing their dinosaur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Jurassic Park? The movie that most people who watch it right now will be watching on Netflix rather than in the cinema? It's obviously not worthy of any awards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They want Netflix to be treated like straight-to-video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine, Netflix will create it's own awards ceremony then. With blackjack! And hookers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You say that like the current awards ceremonies don't have the latter.
Weinstein wasn't the only... well, Weinstein.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
" You say that like the current awards ceremonies don't have the latter."
"Weinstein wasn't the only... well, Weinstein."
At the risk of sounding insensitive, including weinstein among the ranks the hookers catering to the academy awards is a major insult to the second or third oldest profession.
That sociopathic ball of cheap sleaze and sexual extortion is one of the symptoms of why the academy awards can be seen as a ceremony which often glorifies perpetrators and victims more than it does actors and directors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, that was exactly the point.
There wouldn't be demand for hookers if not for the exploitative executives fuelling the demand.
Remember when record labels and movie studios filed expenses for drugs and prostitutes as "flowers and fruit"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ten years ago I was ashamed that the Oscars were politicized.
rant
Typically in the 20th century Oscars, sci-fi, animation and child actors could get snubbed while the old guard patted themselves on the back and thought themselves as masters of the universe. It was a good time for manic-pixie-dream-girl comedies and buddy-cop dramas.
That was before every movie followed the same exact Syd Field three-act structure with that stupid all-is-lost moment at minute 75. That was before every movie was teal and orange, even the ones that didn't feature much skin-tone. It was before sets were obsolete and performers were just shot on greenscreen with the entire setting to be CGI'd in later.
These days, women and non-whites get snubbed while the old guard pats themselves on the back. We're still making movies with invincible male heroes who get the girl and white saviors who are personally responsible making sure non-white historical figures could do their bit part for human progress.
The few things I watch off Netflix aren't always great (and at full disclosure I really don't watch much at all) but they are experimental and try new things outside of Hollywood best practices. And that's before we get into the whole #MeToo matter, that casting-couch business never went away. To be fair, I suspect that the indie film industry is also riddled sexual coercion problems as well.
Maybe we can just route around Hollywood and the Oscars the way we route around censorship and bullshit. I miss art done for the love of the art, rather than this era of Sony's content-as-product fare.
/rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ten years ago I was ashamed that the Oscars were politicized
"I miss art done for the love of the art, rather than this era of Sony's content-as-product fare."
You have more than a few points regarding Hollywood's "creativity. Even back in 2012 the writing was on the wall. And it's gotten way, WAY worse since:
https://www.shortoftheweek.com/news/has-hollywood-lost-its-way/
That said hollywood was never built around the "love of art". It's the same industry it's always been - the one started by the bag of scoundrels which fled eastwards to escape the Edison patent litigations only to heartily embrace similar legal trolling in various forms to squeeze as much profit as possible out of an industry which already supplied the directors with gaggles of young, desperate, and easily exploited beauties of all genders and ages.
The only tangible connection to "art" hollywood ever had was when they actually had to employ masses of artists - matte background painters, prop makers, model builders, etc - and even then those were seen as marginalized side jobs.
The ones calling the shots haven't changed much except that they believe, to a somewhat greater extent, that as long as there are enough bared skin, sex, and caucasian heroes to a background of awesome explosions, the value of "art" in either script or production is debatable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love of art
Yeah, I grew up just after the fall of golden age Hollywood, and the rise of indie projects and (heh) the film-school generation during which Speilberg had his age of glory. The smaller projects had to be smarter so they could compete with with Ben Hur.
So yeah, I know Hollywood was always a nest of thieves and scoundrels, but their output has been better. My fantasy is that the tools will become cheap and all those people displaced by automation will try their hands at making art, including film. It's a very hippie dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Love of art
"My fantasy is that the tools will become cheap and all those people displaced by automation will try their hands at making art, including film. It's a very hippie dream."
One modern tech is starting to make true. The good part about CGI becoming more ubiquitous is that the cost and resources required in making a movie have dropped. And launching it has, due to youtube, become easy.
Although article 13 may relegate indies to using pirate channels for propagation that hippie dream of yours is, today, no longer completely imaginary.
what currently bars the gate is copyright which will either be reformed or abolished, depending on at what point the incumbent industry loses its grip on the lobby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Love of art
"The good part about CGI becoming more ubiquitous is that the cost and resources required in making a movie have dropped. And launching it has, due to youtube, become easy."
As a lifelong horror fan, I can tell you that this is an extremely double-edged sword.
On the one hand, people with real original ideas can get them out there far more easily, and learn their craft more quickly with support from a range of like-minded people. On the other hand, every dickhead with a video camera (or now smartphone) thinks they can made a zombie movie...and they do. My god, they do!
The new classics are still worth wading through the muck for, but that's a lot of muck...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wading through the muck.
Sturgeon's Law comes to mind. The 20th century was rife with crappy sci-fi stories with the occasional masterstroke popping up. Most of the cruft was not saved for posterity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanctity and Hollywood, never expected to see those in one sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole argument is idiotic, no matter how you look at it. The reason why the Emmys were separated originally is that due to their different requirements (commercial breaks, heavier censorship, lower budgets, very fast shooting schedule), TV movies were a different type of production altogether. They simply wouldn't get anywhere pitched against Hollywood productions because they were aiming at totally different markets.
Now, the only difference is distribution - and most films that are at the Oscars will end up on Netflix anyway! Why 6 months in a cinema makes a difference to the quality of a movie is beyond me. Also, he might as well be saying that no sci-fi movie be at the Oscars because the Saturn awards exist.
What's clear is that people like Spielberg are concerned that they are being outmatched by a bigger risk taker, and the awards these films are winning concern them because they're so invested in the old distribution model. A shame, since cinemas are clearly not going away when most people have Netflix, and Spielberg largely owes his career to a TV movie that was played in theatres.
"Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie"
OK, so define "television format". Many of the films under discussion are made for theatrical screening, but released to Netflix when the major cartels refuse to release them. Some are actually made for studios then sold on when they change their minds. How do you define "television" when there's no fundamental difference between those films other than who screened them first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, it used to be that T.V programs would look awful on the big screen because they were shot at much lower resolutions. Now, they pretty much use the same kit for shooting, and low end filming means phone cameras with tiny lenses, and those have better resolution that the old TV cameras had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Exactly, which is why it's the production and not the distribution that should matter. Especially since the new distribution is allowing different artistic choices to be made. The Coen Brothers have stated that they didn't bother shopping around studios with their last movie because they knew it would be turned down on commercial grounds, so they went straight to Netflix.
Steven Soderbergh shot his last couple of movies on iPhones, the first (Unsane) went to theatres, while the second (High Flying Bird) went straight to Netflix. Is one film really more worthy of praise than another just because a different distribution model chosen? I certainly don't think so.
Spielberg seems to think that he's protecting worthy films, but he'd actually advocating for filmmakers to be crippled, or at least palmed off to a separate ghetto because of a decision that might have been made after the film's production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The whole argument is idiotic, no matter how you look at it."
So it is...but the fact that the argument exists at all does tell us a lot about what goes on in the heads of the hollywood elite.
Spielberg - and other former pioneers who've grown fat and lazy over their old successes - are simply getting miffed that, having climbed the ladder to success, they are somehow unable to kick the ladder they climbed down so no one can follow. I'd call them bitter and envious that the talent they no longer possess is now expressed by a younger generation which refuses to kowtow to the traditions of the industry they themselves had to work with.
They're one step short of cane-waving elders hollering toothlessly about the "damn kids" who should be getting off their lawn...
Your points on the way hollywood's classic distribution model is taking torpedoes midships is sound, but Spielberg's arguments, i think, stem from him just being a bitter has-been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm convinced that he's enough of a cinema fan for some of this to be coming from a genuine fear of change as it is purely business. But, quite frankly, since a lot of Netflix's produced output consists of titles that studios have turned down, they only have themselves to blame for that. Roma was shot in 2016, Netflix bought it in 2018. It didn't magically become a made for TV movie just because the studios didn't bother buying the rights.
The answer is to support artists, not to complain that they managed to find a way around the traditional distribution model that tried to keep them out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone who uses the word "intransigence" is waffling and has no faith in their argument whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so disruptive
- The Oscar is a product of (some) Academy in Hollywood, right? It is not a public good and they may write their rules as they like.
- If Netflix would really be so incredible disruptive they would have their own circus show called the streaming Freds or I don't know.
- But for some reason they prefer free advertising on movie festivals that have been evolved for cinema movies. For the Berlinale Netflix said to show Roma in a Cinema somewhere in Spain ... later. For me as a non-subscriber this means that I will never be able to see it. Before I had to put some Euros on the cashier's desk in my local cinema.
- To be fair, when Netflix enters Oscar, Berlinale or whatever, the audience should not see the movie on a silverscreen but on a 42'' TV. But of course that's not what they do and they know why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so disruptive
"- The Oscar is a product of (some) Academy in Hollywood, right? It is not a public good and they may write their rules as they like."
...and the rest of us are free to call them fools for blocking artists from receiving awards based on the quality of their work.
"- If Netflix would really be so incredible disruptive they would have their own circus show called the streaming Freds or I don't know."
Why? The whole argument is that artists should be equal regardless of the distribution deal they get. If the films are already good enough to win awards via traditional means, isn't that more disruptive than setting up another silo?
"For the Berlinale Netflix said to show Roma in a Cinema somewhere in Spain"
They showed a film in Spain in order to be eligible for a German award?
Even assuming you meant the Goyas - why is it a problem for them to abide by the rules for the awards they enter? Plenty of independent films later distributed in a traditional manner have followed the same rules, why should Netflix not do so?
"the audience should not see the movie on a silverscreen but on a 42'' TV"
Why would they watch it on a screen smaller than many of the paying audience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Good
Artistic awards systems can be a public good as they can be a factor that improves the quality of content from the industry. We don't have an exact correlation, and it relates to the confidence of the public in the award's judgement system. The Oscars have been losing confidence for decades now, and related to that, we have a number of other awards programs, though none are as prestigious as the Oscar.
But we know that certain kinds of politicization and biases regarding the Oscar are weakening it as an award. Artists are often given the award for previous work, and best work awards (Best Picture, Best Script) are often biased towards specific types of movies (tragic character analysis, now called Oscar bait). It's kinda like how Newbery Medals go to dead-dog stories.
But the fairer and more consistent the rules of an awards program, it follows the more confidence the public will have in it, and the more it will promote quality of content. Also the more confidence in an award, the longer its tail in additional runs in theaters, more physical media sold, more streaming.
But also, to be fair, we don't have sufficient enough a sampling to determine consistent rules. We're still guessing. The correlation between artistic quality and awards that can be won is there, but causation is still uncertain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Good
The most important awards are probably the ones most people aren't interested in. If Meryl Streep wins another Oscar, it's not going to change her career one iota. But if somebody wins Best Makeup or Best Sound Design, that can change their life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wrote two posts yesterday where I contrasted the Oscar-worthiness of Spielberg's latest theatrical release with the Coen Brothers' recent Netflix film. Something in them seems to have tripped the spam filter and they're still not showing up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep it depends what they want the Oscars to be... Is it the studios internal award for themselves or is it for the best cinema?
If they want to say the Oscar is not an award for "best picture" but instead "best non-Netflix picture", that is up to them.. But it's definitely an admission that they think they aren't as good as Netflix. Especially if they do it now right when it's so clear they are only excluding them because otherwise they would win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few disjointed thought.
I think someone needs to put a poison pill requirement into Spielberg's proposal. Instead of a 90 day exclusivity window for eligibility it should be a 90 day showing requirement. If your film can't remain in a minimum number of theatres for 90 days then it isn't good enough to win an Oscar.
Since the Oscars/Motion Picture Academy Awards are for film the award show should also be distributed as a film subject to the same exclusivity windows. 90 days after the awards ceremony is filmed it can be shown on television or streamed online. After all what's good for the goose is good for the gander right?
If the Hollywood old guard doesn't want Netflix winning awards or to even be in contention for awards they should be making better movies. Restricting them from contention is just tacit admission that they can't compete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few disjointed thought.
You missed one big factor: commercials.
If I want to see commercials for Microsoft, BMW, or ABC TV shows, I'll stay at home and watch them on TV. Yes, I have seen commercials before movies, in the movie theater, that I literally saw the day before during a TV show.
I use an HD antenna to watch ABC so technically I'm getting it for free. Why do I have to pay to see a movie and then see commercials for ABC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few disjointed thought.
... or a requirement to wear pants while watching a film.
What? You where pants to the theater?
0.o
/--\
Crap, I knew I was doing something wrong.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A few disjointed thought.
Crap, I forgot to use the correct word too.
Wear*
Not where
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Where are my pants!?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Where are my pants!?"
That's how you get away with not wearing pants to the theater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess I HAVE to protect my copyright
Since I've registered all terms pertaining to getting off my lawn I'm gonna have to sue or I might lose my copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American Elitism at it's best.
Personally I don't even watch any of those award shows, they are meaningless to me. I don't watch films based on awards or nominations. I watch what I want to watch because I am interested in being entertained, and frankly a LOT of the tripe coming out of most places is just regurgitated crap with no real originality at all. How many times are they going to remake the same movie over and over again? At some point you kill the cow by over-milking it.
Netflix is great because it has no adverts. I am paying them for that experience, so cable companies and advertisers can go cry to someone that cares.
I watch some movies in theaters, and some on Netflix because that's where it launched. Some movies are so bad that watching it on Netflix is the most financially sound way to do it. Why reward bad film making?
And the manner in which a film is made should have no bearing on its merit to win an aware anyway. Quality is quality, and it shows in the product. You can polish a turd, but it's still a turd.
This is just snobbery coming out of Hollywood, and it should be shown the door and asked not to come back until it matures. Not to mention that forcing film launches in certain areas is akin to feudal marketing practices regarding forced sales and that belongs in the past where it died. Same place where forcing people to pay for channels no one wants or cares to watch belongs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]