Steven Spielberg Says Netflix Films shouldn't Quality for Oscar Noms.

[Mr.F]

If this is about saving theaters, then the Oscars need to change the rules so that any film wanting to qualify needs to play in at least 1000 theaters across all 50 states before starting opening day and for at least two weeks. It's only fair as NYC and LA are not the only places that have movie theaters. Sorry, no more one-week qualifying runs to get Julianne Moore an Oscar nomination and hope that it will drive audiences to see it. Either you're all in from the get-go or you don't play.

[SethRex]

Studios aren't taking the risks, so the movies are going to the people who will. Maybe, if studios actually bothered to make those movies, they wouldn't have to worry about complaining about streaming services and these movies.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by DrWally

For the record, Steven Spielberg has directed five OSCAR Best Picture nominees in the past twelve years. You're a poster I always enjoy reading, but you're way off base here.

That's not the point I was trying to make.

How many of those nominated films were the type of low-budget, indie-style films that Spielberg is saying Hollywood studios won't finance anymore and that Netflix shouldn't receive Oscar consideration for making?

Netflix and their online counterparts are not going to challenge Warner Brothers or DreamWorks in the arena of big-budget blockbusters.

And if they choose to produce the kind of movies that Hollywood won't, then I think they deserve all the critical acclaim for doing so...including Academy Awards. I fail to see how denying them that official recognition will save the theater system.

...it doesn't address the root cause.

[Mr.F]

One of the best films released in the US last year was Heal the Living. The played only in 2 theaters, grossed $3000. Even in France, its home country, it only grossed $2,000,000 in its entire run. The Accountant made half of that in its opening weekend. So, not a lot of people saw it in theaters, and people will from now on watch it at home. Is it a TV movie?

What's the difference between that and Mudbound? It was made to be seen on the big screen, but no studio wanted to take it on because they thought it was unreleasable due to the subject matter, but Neflix picked it up and gave it a limited theatrical release and most people saw it at home. So how is this situation different?

Most of the population did not have the chance to sed Oscar nominees like Faces Places, The Bread Winner, Loving Vincent, and The Florida Project until they were released on video. Are they TV movies?

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Cliff

[Show spoiler]
Here's the thing for all the people saying Netflix isn't TV... you watch it on a tv. It's distribution method is a TV. If Netflix wants to make films and give them theatrical engagements beyond a tolken week's run at one theater... then we'll talk. But how many of you watch Netflix in a theater? Ummm... NONE OF YOU. It's TV.


And the Emmy's have a category for "BEST TELEVISION MOVIE." If Netflix is going to be eligible for Emmys for shows like Orange is the New Black and House of Cards, why should their movies qualify for Oscars? If Netflix wants into the Oscar business, they should give their films actual theatrical exhibitions.



The Post and Bridge of Spies say hello. Just because the man makes popular movies doesn't make him an enemy to art. AND... He's had 11 movies nominated for Best Picture of the year (Jaws, Raiders, ET, Color Purple, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Munich, War Horse, Lincoln, Bridge of Spies, The Post)... you make it sound like he's incapable of making anything of quality.


He's also (from what I understand in talking with people who would know) been battling with Netflix for a big theatrical release. He wants his films to be seen in a theater first and foremost.


Look... bottom line, if Netflix wants to be an Oscar contender, they should make films that are intended for full, exclusive theatrical runs. They're gaming the system and using guidelines intended for truly small pictures (like documentaries) for movies that don't fit that mold. If that's what we're going to do, we might as well make The Shape of Water Emmy eligible when it premieres on HBO or give VOD and straight to video titles Emmy Awards since they're watched using the same hardware as Netflix and ABC. Why Netflix should be awarded by an industry they're attempting to supplant seems bizarre to me.

"The Post and Bridge of Spies say hello. Just because the man makes popular movies doesn't make him an enemy to art. AND... He's had 11 movies nominated for Best Picture of the year (Jaws, Raiders, ET, Color Purple, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Munich, War Horse, Lincoln, Bridge of Spies, The Post)... you make it sound like he's incapable of making anything of quality."

I never made the argument that Spielberg doesn't make quality films. I made the argument that he doesn't make the kind of small films that he now says "are now going to Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix.”

If he's upset that some low-budget film from Netflix might get an Oscar nomination, then why doesn't he or someone else at DreamWorks make those kinds of films? How does preventing Netflix from getting Academy Award consideration for producing the kind of films that he isn't making accomplish anything?


"Look... bottom line, if Netflix wants to be an Oscar contender, they should make films that are intended for full, exclusive theatrical runs. They're gaming the system and using guidelines intended for truly small pictures (like documentaries) for movies that don't fit that mold."

Why don't the studios counter that by making more high-quality small pictures?

As opposed to blocking Netflix films from Academy consideration so they don't have to deal with the critical and/or financial fallout of "just making branded tentpole, guaranteed box office hits," like Spielberg says.

The studios can either continue making mostly big-budget shit sandwiches and deal with the potential long-term ramifications of that particular business model, or they can diversify their content and return to a 1970s model of making movies.

...it's not Netflix's fault if they won't.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Zillamon51

I understand where he's coming from, and in principle I agree. But the rules are the rules, and the films qualify if they meet the criteria. If they make it harder to qualify, like upping the number of theaters or the length of the run, it might shut out some smaller films that aren't made for streaming. All I can see them doing, is possibly adding a rule that a film can't be released for home viewing until after a certain time has elapsed from its qualifying theatrical run.

Excellent solution!

Originally Posted by rodneyfaile

They shouldn't send out Oscar screener blu rays then for people to watch at home ON THEIR TVs.

Except that everyone getting Oscar screener copy Blu-rays sent to them likely has proper home theatre setups to watch them on (projector, large screen, high calibre surround sound, etc) and not TVs.

[Crispy0009]

This whole thread went off the rails. Lol

If a film is released in theaters and meets the current requirements....it should be allowed to be nominated. Just my opinion.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Cliff

[Show spoiler]I would say The Post ($50M), Bridge of Spies ($40M), and (to a certain extent) War Horse ($66) would qualify, especially next to his "Blockbuster" films released during the same time (Ready Player One- $175M, BFG- $140M, Tintin- $135M). It's all relative. Netflix will likely end up spending over $150M on Scorsese's The Irishman. Next to that, the $40M spent to make Bridge of Spies makes it look like an A24 release.

And yes... you're right. If Netflix isn't showing their films in theaters... it CERTAINLY won't save the theatrical experience... quite the opposite actually. You seem to be more focused on a film's budget, not the intention of it's exhibition.

"It's all relative. Netflix will likely end up spending over $150M on Scorsese's The Irishman"

I find it hard to believe that Netflix would spend $150 million on a movie and only let it be shown in theaters for one week.

And if films that only have a one-week theater run are good enough to get an Oscar nomination, then so what? You really think the Academy Awards are all of a sudden going to be dominated by Netflix, Hulu and Amazon nominations for Best Picture?

Again, I'll always return to the position that if Hollywood doesn't like the streamers getting Oscar nominations for smaller films, then the solution is for Hollywood to start making better films.

...not to block Netflix from the award system.

Sure the streaming model is an obvious long-term threat to movie theaters.

But I don't think Academy Award nominations are close to being the crux of that threat.

Just my humble opinion.

[Grethiwha]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

And if they choose to produce the kind of movies that Hollywood won't, then I think they deserve all the critical acclaim for doing so...including Academy Awards. I fail to see how denying them that official recognition will save the theater system.

It'll just make the Oscars more meaningless and obsolete.

Movies are better watched on a TV nowadays anyways. Blu-ray and a big TV, alone with the lights off. Compare that to my experience watching The Square, in a packed showing at my local art theatre last year... I ended up in the nosebleeds... it was like watching it on my phone... I could barely make out the subtitles. Ha.

A more pressing matter is Netflix films qualifying for blu-ray releases! Come on Netflix, I wanna own Okja!

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Grethiwha

[Show spoiler]It'll just make the Oscars more meaningless and obsolete.

Movies are better watched on a TV nowadays anyways. Blu-ray and a big TV, alone with the lights off. Compare that to my experience watching The Square, in a packed showing at my local art theatre last year... I ended up in the nosebleeds... it was like watching it my phone... I could barely make out the subtitles.

[Show spoiler]Ha.

A more pressing matter is Netflix films qualifying for blu-ray releases! Come on Netflix, I wanna own Okja!

That's the much bigger threat for movie theaters.

...award nominations are small potatoes by comparison.

[Mr.F]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Excellent solution!



Except that everyone getting Oscar screener copy Blu-rays sent to them likely has proper home theatre setups to watch them on (projector, large screen, high calibre surround sound, etc) and not TVs.

Dolores Hart, former actress and current nun, is an active voter. Do you think her convent has a full home theater?

Shailene Woodley is an Academy member and has said she doesn't own a TV because she prefers to read whenshe is not working

I somehow doubt Sophia Loren would bother to have one, especially since she has said that she lets her maid fill her ballots

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

“maybe with the promise of a slight one-week theatrical window to qualify them for awards,” ... How is this any different than when you and your contemporaries get your movies in 2 theaters on December 31st so you can qualify for Oscars. Or am I reading this wrong?

You're not, that's why his argument falls apart. Sneaking movies into theaters on Christmas to barely get the one-week qualifying run has been going on for a while.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

And you need to learn how to read. Because Steven also clearly acknowledges that the content that Netflix produces are high quality art. The fact that he says that Netflix is a threat to movie theaters is actually a compliment, if anything. But no, you guys just want to find something to cry about. What he says about Netflix films being TV movies is factual. Whether you like it or not. I find it very hypocritical of you guys that you only make this exception towards Netflix. But when other TV channels create their own movies, I'm pretty damn sure you guys would think they don't qualify for an Oscar either. So lets just cut the crap. Yes, things are changing and Steven knows that. Just because Netflix put out some of the best stuff, doesn't change the fact that they are a TV service. Hell, their shows is what makes Netflix, not the movies. So I don't why you guys are getting this triggered when Netflix are not there yet when it comes to films.

It's called having an opinion. Obviously, you're not ok with some of us having one different from yours.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Here's the thing for all the people saying Netflix isn't TV... you watch it on a tv.

I watch almost all movies on TV. Many movies barely get a theatrical release. Many get a very limited run, often only in big cities or art house theatres.

[Leonidas King]

Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn

Did you three do that on purpose?

I know right. What was that about? Also hilarious how all three posted it 2 minutes apart from each other lol.

[Vilya]

If Netflix's movies meet the Academy's rules for award contention, then they can compete. Why over think this? It's why they have rules. Don't like those rules? Petition to change them.

If the Academy's rules are too lax, then I would think Mr. Speilberg could use his considerable influence to lobby for a change. If he could rewrite the rules, I wonder what exactly they would be?

It's late here and I won't lose any sleep over what awards they qualify for; they can compete for a Grammy for all I care. I'm more caring when I'm awake, but the arguments in this thread entertained me and thus my valuable, semi-conscious, contribution to the debate.

[Wildcat2000]

“Few and few filmmakers are going to struggle to raise money or to go to compete in Sundance and possibly get one of the specialty labels to release their film theatrically, publicly, and more of them are going to let the SVOD business finance their films

Why is this bad? Unless I’m misunderstanding this particular statement (and I watched the video) it sounds like he thinks people SHOULD struggle to raise money and compete in Sundance.

Does he feels stuff is just being handed to filmmakers too easily by using streaming services to back them up? I don’t agree with that if that’s what he meant.

As far as the Oscar thing goes I understand what he’s saying...buuuut these services are legitimate movie formats. He seems to contradict himself with these good/bad statements.

[mwynn]

https://www.theverge.com/platform/am...-film-festival

Netflix banned from competing at Cannes Film Festival
Netflix Originals can no longer compete for the Palme d’Or

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Because it became increasingly harder for the studios to make those films. Advertising has gotten ridiculously expensive and movies are still a business. I remember interviewing Kevin Smith for Tusk and him telling me it's hard to be a small film because NBC wants to charge you the same amount for 30 seconds of advertising as they would charge The Avengers and for a film that might only have a budget of $3M, you're going to have to spend 5X that to compete. So it's not that studios don't want to make those movies... it's not often financially smart to do so. And yet, of the 9 Best Picture nominees this year, only one cost $100M or more (Dunkirk) and all were wildly successful (Get Out, for example, made $255M off a $4.5M budget). But those are the exceptions and not the rules. Again... you seem focused on the budgets and not the release pattern. Notice... he's not upset that some low budget film from A24 or Blumhouse is being nominated... he's a purist in that he thinks awards for films should be given to films that were made to first be seen in theaters. If you want to put it on television screens at the same time, he sees the intent of that film as a TV movie. If Netflix wants to change their distribution pattern and help elevate the box office overall by giving their films more deliberate theatrical releases, I can't see any reason for him to discourage that. But to effectively take the knees out of the theatrical experience... he doesn't think you should award that.




Because Netflix makes films with a different financial motives. In fact... in all my years of dealing with Netflix and various partners... nobody actually can figure out WHAT Netflix's financial motive is. The studios have to make films that they think will turn a profit, otherwise they have to stop making movies altogether. Netflix, on the hand, has no profit center. If Mudbound is watched by 1000 people or 100,000 people, Netflix makes no one dime more. Netflix is in the quantity business (Which is why most of their films aren't really that good ($90M for Bright?? Is that the kind of quality 70s model the studios should emulate? And now we're getting a sequel). So before you worship at the altar of Netflix for being the last bastion of quality in filmed entertainment... Let's admit what little impact they've had.

You make some interesting points.

[Salamurai]

This is a whole lot of irony, given that Spielberg's very first full-length film (Duel, 1971) was initially released to TV as a movie of the week. What was his intent when he made it? vs how it ended up being distributed?
(This is also amusing to me because I just bought the Blu-Ray of Duel today)

I haven't checked, but wasn't the latest Cloverfield made for theaters but then Netflix made a deal for it? now it's a "TV" movie because the distribution changed. Movies get shelved and changed from theater to VOD or direct to home media all the time.
This sounds like sour grapes that a quality film -- whatever that may be; there are several "Best Picture" movies that I can't get thru -- that isn't being distributed a certain way shouldn't be eligible for an award given by moviemaking peers.