Should Netflix release films in the cinema?

Minderbinder

I was just reading an article on RTE in which Spielberg says Netflix films don’t deserve or qualify for academy awards because they don’t release in theatres. It was also suggested by another director that Netflix are ruining the cinema industry.

Firstly, I’m not sure if Netflix want or have expressed a desire to be considered for academy awards. Secondly this seems like sour grapes from Hollywood (who have been producing garbage for years) because there is a platform not playing by the ‘rules’ and doing a much better job than Hollywood.

I like going to the cinema but I don’t go often anymore. Hopefully Netflix will inspire the ‘elites’ to actually make better films and return to their roots instead of spending most of their time meddling in politics and social issues.

What do you think?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Netflix is competition to them, pure and simple.

If Spielberg and Co want want to bring people back to the cinema then can put out some original movies to make it worthwhile. None of this Superman 4, Batman 3, Avengers 15, Jurassic Park whatever and I don't even know what Mission Impossible we're up to.

I really doubt Netflix gives a ****, though. And the Oscars isn't as big a deal as it used to be.

Jim Bob Scratcher

#MeToo

Stigura

Netflix could put out more 18 rated stuff, to be honest. Very high 90's% of what they offer is 15. It's a bit too much like friday night in with the Osmond family, for me.

I'm not talking porn. It just irks me that, by default, I'm being treated like I'm a teenager, watching with mother. Perhaps the vast majority of stuff being filmed, these days, is made for fifteen year old's? Dunno.

What " Hollywood " is up to? I really don't care. I don't have a TV and so don't really hear about that stuff. What little I do hear? " Politics and social issues ". Yep. Sounds about right.

Lu Tze

They do limited cinema releases, for films that they have hopes for award season, so that they qualify for the awards criteria. I saw siege of jadotville in the cinema

Wanderer78

Minderbinder wrote:

I like going to the cinema but I don’t go often anymore. Hopefully Netflix will inspire the ‘elites’ to actually make better films and return to their roots instead of spending most of their time meddling in politics and social issues.

I must be living on another planet, but hasn't the world of film always been intertwining political and social issues within itself?

kneemos

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Netflix is competition to them, pure and simple.

If Spielberg and Co want want to bring people back to the cinema then can put out some original movies to make it worthwhile. None of this Superman 4, Batman 3, Avengers 15, Jurassic Park whatever and I don't even know what Mission Impossible we're up to.

I really doubt Netflix gives a ****, though. And the Oscars isn't as big a deal as it used to be.

The obligatory happy ending.

Kermit.de.frog

How is Spielberg directing so many films? Every second film seems to have him involved now.

My suspicion is they just add his name for extra credit.

kneemos

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

How is Spielberg directing so many films? Every second film seems to have him involved now.

My suspicion is they just add his name for extra credit.

Haven't seen a Spielberg film for years.

Thomas__.

Lu Tze wrote: »

They do limited cinema releases, for films that they have hopes for award season, so that they qualify for the awards criteria. I saw siege of jadotville in the cinema

That was an exemption by Netflix and as I recall it, it wasn't in cinemas all over the Republic. I have watched it on YouTube. Pity that they are that restrictive on DVD Releases as well cos I might certainly buy that DVD. On the other hand, this British series 'The Crown' which is also an Netflix series is available on DVD to buy.

Guy:Incognito

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Netflix is competition to them, pure and simple.

If Spielberg and Co want want to bring people back to the cinema then can put out some original movies to make it worthwhile. None of this Superman 4, Batman 3, Avengers 15, Jurassic Park whatever and I don't even know what Mission Impossible we're up to.

I really doubt Netflix gives a ****, though. And the Oscars isn't as big a deal as it used to be.

You can hardly use the type of movies that are consistently making huge numbers in the box office and breaking records to make a valid point about getting people in the door.

Del2005

Thomas__. wrote: »

That was an exemption by Netflix and as I recall it, it wasn't in cinemas all over the Republic. I have watched it on YouTube. Pity that they are that restrictive on DVD Releases as well cos I might certainly buy that DVD. On the other hand, this British series 'The Crown' which is also an Netflix series is available on DVD to buy.

They don't release their own material to dvd as that would defeat their purpose of being a streaming site. Wasn't the Crown a BBC or other TV station co production.

As for Netflix releasing to the cinema. The 2 directors in the article are out of touch with what's happening. Going to the movies is expensive and usually a gob sh1te does something to ruin the film. With 4k TVs and sound systems you can get near cinema like picture and sound quality at home with 1000% better facilities.

I don't think I've watched an Oscar nominated film in years, if I have it wasn't because of the Oscars, and considering that some of the voters admit to not watching the films how relevant to the average person are the Oscars? The block busters, usually a sequel or prequel, don't win Oscars yet win were if counts in the box office.

Thomas__.

Del2005 wrote: »

Thomas__. wrote: »

That was an exemption by Netflix and as I recall it, it wasn't in cinemas all over the Republic. I have watched it on YouTube. Pity that they are that restrictive on DVD Releases as well cos I might certainly buy that DVD. On the other hand, this British series 'The Crown' which is also an Netflix series is available on DVD to buy.

They don't release their own material to dvd as that would defeat their purpose of being a streaming site. Wasn't the Crown a BBC or other TV station co production.

As for Netflix releasing to the cinema. The 2 directors in the article are out of touch with what's happening.  Going to the movies is expensive and usually a gob sh1te does something to ruin the film. With 4k TVs and sound systems you can get near cinema like picture and sound quality at home with 1000% better facilities.  

I don't think I've watched an Oscar nominated film in years, if I have it wasn't because of the Oscars,  and considering that some of the voters admit to not watching the films how relevant to the average person are the Oscars?  The block busters, usually a sequel or prequel, don't win Oscars yet win were if counts in the box office.

Yes, The Crown is a co-production but still at the start of every season in this series it is announced as 'an original Netflix series'. I suppose that the distribution of the DVDs is done by one of the co-producers.

I absolutely agree with you regarding visits to the Cinema and the Prices which are by now as much as one pays for a new DVD release.

I have watched some Oscar nominated films recently. The worst of them which imo didn't deserve that award was 'Darkest Hour' and the best among those I have seen is 'The Post', from last year it was 'Dunkirk'. In general I hold it as you do, I watch films in the Cinema because of the story that interests me, not whether it gets nominated for film awards.

garbo speaks

In the 1990's the phrase "direct to video" usually meant inferior sequels, and cheap and lazy cashgrab films. Today the term "straight to Netflix" has the same meaning.

Autecher

Stigura wrote: »

I'm not talking porn. It just irks me that, by default, I'm being treated like I'm a teenager, watching with mother. Perhaps the vast majority of stuff being filmed, these days, is made for fifteen year old's? Dunno.

Ah come on, you clearly are

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dunkirk was awful rubbish. Still can't understand why reviewers gave it a thumbs up. Action? Nope. Suspense? Nope. Decent acting? barely. Dreadful waste of time.

I've stopped going to the cinema because all of the movies I've seen in the last two years were crap. Not worth the price of a cinema ticket, and more importantly, not worth the time wasted going to the cinema, getting seated, the hassle of others around me with their mobiles, and going home. The Last Jedi simply screwed cinema for me. Never again. Cinema releases used to have a certain magic around them. Big screen awesomeness. Meh. Gone now. I'll happily wait for an internet release and watch it at home.

I hope Netflix gives big cinema the middle finger and continues to release decent shows/films independent of their 'standards'. Hopefully, we get more companies joining in and creating some competition for Netflix though. Simply having Netflix will become stale at some point.

Autecher

Christopher Nolan is another director who doesn't like Netflix because they don't release movies in the cinema. He said "I will always make movies designed to be to be watched in the cinema". What I don't get about that is the movie is in the cinema for 3 months at most then goes onto sky, netflix, amazon, tv etc... so he's saying only see it in the cinema, don't watch it after that ever!

Sidebaro

Spielberg sounds like an old musician whinging about iTunes. Times are changing and you have to change with the technological advancements. People will still go to the cinema though so I doubt Netflix is going to take over to the same effect as iTunes. He just sounds like a snob at this stage. The average person doesn't appreciate the same things in a film that Spielberg or film buffs do, same with music.

Boom_Bap

I think the way a lot of the movies that Netflix have in their library are ones that they have 'bought' from studios that are either in production or have been completed.
So film studios start to make a movie and don't think that it'll make money, Netflix step in and buy it and stream it.
So these are probably not going to be Oscar worthy movies.

There are also movies that they do from the ground up, I'm sure they are going to get better at it, and I'm sure some of them would be excellent to see on the big screen.

Their recent movie Game Over, Man got a few screenings around the USA which is cool.

Vex Willems

garbo speaks wrote: »

In the 1990's the phrase "direct to video" usually meant inferior sequels, and cheap and lazy cashgrab films. Today the term "straight to Netflix" has the same meaning.

I wouldn't say it's the same thing, how many direct to video films would have had a $90m budget or it's equivalent to the 90's like Bright had?

Amirani

Deleted User wrote: »

I hope Netflix gives big cinema the middle finger and continues to release decent shows/films independent of their 'standards'. Hopefully, we get more companies joining in and creating some competition for Netflix though. Simply having Netflix will become stale at some point.

This reminds me a bit of the plan to have competition in Premier League football highlights. Sound well and good having extra competition, but does that then just mean that consumers have to sign up to multiple subscription services (Netflix, Sky, Amazon etc.) in the same way that football fans had to sign up to Sky AND BT versus just Sky previously?

If you are referring to just the production rather than distribution then I agree completely of course.

Thomas__.

Deleted User wrote: »

Dunkirk was awful rubbish. Still can't understand why reviewers gave it a thumbs up. Action? Nope. Suspense? Nope. Decent acting? barely. Dreadful waste of time.

I've stopped going to the cinema because all of the movies I've seen in the last two years were crap.  Not worth the price of a cinema ticket, and more importantly, not worth the time wasted going to the cinema, getting seated, the hassle of others around me with their mobiles, and going home. The Last Jedi simply screwed cinema for me. Never again. Cinema releases used to have a certain magic around them. Big screen awesomeness. Meh. Gone now. I'll happily wait for an internet release and watch it at home.

I hope Netflix gives big cinema the middle finger and continues to release decent shows/films independent of their 'standards'. Hopefully, we get more companies joining in and creating some competition for Netflix though. Simply having Netflix will become stale at some point.

Interesting comment. As with every film, it is always a matter of the taste of the person itself who watches it. You're not alone with your opinion regarding Dunkirk, as I have noticed similar comments in other places. Some even find Darkest Hour a good film whereas I find it utter rubbish and the main actor Garry Oldman is simply an old bore.

Hande hoche!

Annihilation might have benefited from being shown on a big screen.

garbo speaks wrote: »

In the 1990's the phrase "direct to video" usually meant inferior sequels, and cheap and lazy cashgrab films. Today the term "straight to Netflix" has the same meaning.

The need to make a film with JCVD or Seagal. Although lately Willis and John Cusack have also been slumming it.

Autecher

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Annihilation might have benefited from being shown on a big screen.



The need to make a film with JCVD or Seagal. Although lately Willis and John Cusack have also been slumming it.

I'm glad Annihilation was on Netflix, I thought it was brilliant and I got to see it in the comfort of my own home without popcorn munching, people talking etc...
Also nobody respectable will hire Seagal anymore due to his "alleged" Weinsteiny behaviour

Shred

My recollection is Netflix originally intended to do simultaneous cinema/home releases for all of their own movies. But what happened was the larger cinema chains (correctly) told them to go fúck themselves and this is why only a handful of films get a limited cinema run. Cannes have just banned Netflix from Palm d'Or consideration also as contenders must have a cinema release in France.
The bottom line is the majority of movies are designed to be seen on a cinema screen, despite a growing number of people's preference being to sit on their arses at home and watch the latest movie (in many cases) on a 4-10" screen in 15 minute segments while checking f*cebook or some other crap. I have a pretty decent home cinema setup at home but, imho, you simply can't beat the magic of seeing a movie on the largest screen available assuming other people are actually capable of shutting the fúck up and leaving their phones alone for the duration (which is a rare).
Cinema tickets are getting more and more expensive, but this is also the result of less people going for the aforementioned reasons (plus continued piracy - although tbf I think Netflix has helped reduce this somewhat) and so prices continue to go up. As long as this continues the majority of studios are going to choose "franchise number X" or "re-(make)-boot Y" over taking on the financial risk of original content.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You can hardly use the type of movies that are consistently making huge numbers in the box office and breaking records to make a valid point about getting people in the door.

... then how is Netflix "ruining the cinema industry"?

Hercule Poirot

Minderbinder wrote: »

I was just reading an article on RTE in which Spielberg says Netflix films don’t deserve or qualify for academy awards because they don’t release in theatres. It was also suggested by another director that Netflix are ruining the cinema industry.

Firstly, I’m not sure if Netflix want or have expressed a desire to be considered for academy awards. Secondly this seems like sour grapes from Hollywood (who have been producing garbage for years) because there is a platform not playing by the ‘rules’ and doing a much better job than Hollywood.

I like going to the cinema but I don’t go often anymore. Hopefully Netflix will inspire the ‘elites’ to actually make better films and return to their roots instead of spending most of their time meddling in politics and social issues.

What do you think?

If Bright is anything to go by then Speilberg has very little to be worrying about....

Guy:Incognito

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... then how is Netflix "ruining the cinema industry"?

I never said they were. You used those movies as an example of to what they should stop making if they want to get the numbers up.

mathie

Vex Willems wrote: »

I wouldn't say it's the same thing, how many direct to video films would have had a $90m budget or it's equivalent to the 90's like Bright had?

Yeah I think times have changed now with the internet.
In the 80s / 90s you didn't have the kind of viral word-of-mouth that could destroy a film in a heartbeat. That access to information is a game changer.

The Guardian did a good article on the ins and outs of Netflix picking up movies.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/mar/10/annihilation-netflix-release-alex-garland-ex-machina

After establishing itself as a distributor of quality documentaries and arthouse fare, this was supposed to be the year Netflix broke out into blockbuster genre territory. Yet after derisive receptions for a trio of fantasy duds in David Ayer’s Bright, Duncan Jones’s Mute and the surprise-release The Cloverfield Paradox, Netflix’s creative instincts have been called into question.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

How is Spielberg directing so many films? Every second film seems to have him involved now.

My suspicion is they just add his name for extra credit.

He only directs one or two a year. Most of the time he's listed as a producer/executive producer (which, I think, means he just pays for it, occasionally advises and gets production updates)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I never said they were. You used those movies as an example of to what they should stop making if they want to get the numbers up.

Didn't mean to imply that you did: phrase is taken from the opening post.

recyclops

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

He only directs one or two a year. Most of the time he's listed as a producer/executive producer (which, I think, means he just pays for it, occasionally advises and gets production updates)

the two he has already out this year are both brilliant while being extremely different.

Ready player one is just a marvellous cinema movie and really should be watched on as large a screen as possible

Ekerot

He's just bitter.
Netflix doesn't necessarily release films in cinemas but they could if they wanted to, the criteria for being nominated for an Oscar isn't even that difficult for a company like Netflix to do.

ixoy

He doesn't seem to mind Academy members watching DVD screeners of his films on their small screens if it gets him an Oscar..

magnumbud

dont get me wrong the netflix produced tv shows are great but i cant really say the same for any of the movies they have produced that i have seen. the new cloverfield, bright, the terrible adam sandler movies( which i turned off 20 minutes) , the circle to name just a few

Hercule Poirot

Did anyone see that Meyerowitz stories? Kept seeing it popping up on all these articles that it was one of the best comedies of the year, holy **** it was awful....

Ipso

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Annihilation might have benefited from being shown on a big screen.



The need to make a film with JCVD or Seagal. Although lately Willis and John Cusack have also been slumming it.

They should re-invent Seagal as a comedian, His first film could be called, Run, Steven, Run.

Hector Bellend

Only ones with loads of sex and fanny

Shred

Ekerot wrote: »

Netflix doesn't necessarily release films in cinemas but they could if they wanted to.

I wouldn't be so sure. Similar boycotts occurred with Okja and other releases too.
Alex Garland also recently spoke of his disappointment at Annihilation not getting a wider cinema release.

Del2005

garbo speaks wrote: »

In the 1990's the phrase "direct to video" usually meant inferior sequels, and cheap and lazy cashgrab films. Today the term "straight to Netflix" has the same meaning.

So multiple batman's, superman's and batman fighting superman are top class films. If the cinema releases maintained the standards then they wouldn't be complaining about Netflix.

The good production and stories these days is on TV and not the big screen.

Del2005

Shred wrote: »

Cinema tickets are getting more and more expensive, but this is also the result of less people going for the aforementioned reasons (plus continued piracy - although tbf I think Netflix has helped reduce this somewhat) and so prices continue to go up. As long as this continues the majority of studios are going to choose "franchise number X" or "re-(make)-boot Y" over taking on the financial risk of original content.

The movie companies haven't realised that viewing has changed and instead of offering a better service or reducing prices to encourage people to go to the cinema they get into huff when a company is making something that people will pay to watch.