Spielberg vs Netflix

Sad Professor

Spielberg's recent comments on Netflix have being getting a lot of attention:

“I hope all of us really continue to believe that the greatest contributions we can make as filmmakers is to give audiences the motion picture theatrical experience,” Spielberg said. “I’m a firm believer that movie theaters need to be around forever.”

“I love television,” the director continued. “I love the opportunity. Some of the greatest writing being done today is for television, some of the best directing for television, some of the best performances [are] on television today. The sound is better in homes more than it ever has been in history but there’s nothing like going to a big dark theatre with people you’ve never met before and having the experience wash over you. That’s something we all truly believe in.”

[...] Last March ahead of the release of “Ready Player One,” Spielberg went viral for saying films that debut online should not vie for Oscars.

“I don’t believe that films that are just given token qualifications, in a couple of theaters for less than a week, should qualify for the Academy Award nominations,” Spielberg said at the time. “Fewer and fewer filmmakers are going to struggle to raise money, or to compete at Sundance and possibly get one of the specialty labels to release their films theatrically. And more of them are going to let the SVOD [Streaming Video On-Demand] businesses finance their films, maybe with the promise of a slight, one-week theatrical window to qualify for awards But, in fact, once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie.”

He now says he's going to propose a rule to the Academy that will ban films from the Oscars that aren't given a proper theatrical release.

Spielberg is standing up for the communal experience of the cinema and I think he's right to do so, but is the toothpaste out of the tube?

Autecher

Just like Christopher Nolan I think he is stuck in the past on this issue. Even the most successful movies are shown in cinemas for 3 months at most, where do they go after that? To DVD, blu-ray, Netflix, Sky, streaming,terrestrial tv etc...

If someone in the US wants to watch Ready Player One tomorrow they won't go to the cinema to see it because it won't be there, they will watch it on Netflix/iTunes/Amazon etc.. so his point is very flawed there I think.

I couldn't give a fiddlers about the Oscars or award shows but him suggesting that rule is just selfishness imo. It seems very much like "they are doing something different to what I'm used to and I don't like it so I will try to stop it. He says himself “Fewer and fewer filmmakers are going to struggle to raise money" why is that a bad thing? He should want that but he's so set in his ways that he is interfering in other people's business.

Like most things in life I suspect money is the real issue, his last movie slightly underperformed (compared to Marvel/DC movies anyway) at the box office and he's blaming Netflix for it.

fitz

Communal experience is not everyone's preferred way to see a movie..."hell is other people" is never more appropriate than when applied to a lot of cinema-goers. Spielberg might have ideas for how he'd prefer you to experience his films, but he (or anyone else for that matter) has got no place dictating to anyone what the "right" way to see a movie is for them.

As for limiting awards?
If someone makes a terrific piece of art, why should where it's shown exclude them from it being recognised as such? A film is a film, regardless of where it's viewed - if the best film of the year happens to have only screened in Netflix, so be it.

Del2005

Are the awards relevant to anyone outside the trade? I don't care if a film won an Oscar or any other award. If the reviews are good or the story sounds good I'll watch it I don't particularly care if its won an award.

The fact that the biggest earning films rarely get into the awards, and award winners rarely have box office success, would imply that the awards aren't relevant to the majority.

If he wants to protect the cinema he needs to get them to be more competitive. 4k TVs and sound systems make home nearly as good as the big screen without the hassle.

Frank O. Pinion

Ironically, Spielberg has become quite a dinosaur.

Franz Von Peppercorn

I always feel like someone should explain perspective to people who fetish the cinema experience.

dreamers75

Being honest I have yet to see a decent netflix movie.

By that i mean a movie netlfix bought or made, they all sound and look great in trailers but none have been above average.

expectationlost

Sad Professor wrote: »

Spielberg's recent comments on Netflix have being getting a lot of attention:


He now says he's going to propose a rule to the Academy that will ban Netflix films that aren't released theatrically from the Oscars.

Spielberg is standing up for the communal experience of the cinema and I think he's right to do so, but is the toothpaste out of the tube?

The Academy Awards, also known as the Oscars,[1] are a set of awards for artistic and technical merit in the film industry, given annually by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS (often pronounced am-pas); also known as simply the Academy or the Motion Picture Academy) is a professional honorary organization with the stated goal of advancing the arts and sciences of motion pictures.

A film, also called a movie, motion picture, moving picture, or photoplay, is a series of still images that, when shown on a screen, create the illusion of moving images

what about advancing the art and science if motion pictures means "has to be shown in theatres"?
when did the "must have theatrical release" rule come in

Franz Von Peppercorn

dreamers75 wrote: »

Being honest I have yet to see a decent netflix movie.

By that i mean a movie netlfix bought or made, they all sound and look great in trailers but none have been above average.

Roma was Oscar nominated. Favourite for a while.

dreamers75

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Roma was Oscar nominated. Favourite for a while.

Havent watched it yet.

all the netflix movies i have seen are bit meh.

Fysh

As a big fan of the cinema experience I find myself cringing whenever a director who's been around long enough to know better comes out with a poorly expressed defence of it.

Making the Oscars not recognise Netflix/Amazon/Sky exclusives won't "fix" cinema - it'll just reinforce the disconnect (perceived or real) between the industry in Hollywood and the audience. There's a lot of established figures blustering about this, but I bet people starting their careers now are finding that while it may be harder to get money for theatrically released films, there's a surprising amount of money and freedom around that wasn't there before for making material that's exclusive to one streaming platform or another.

It puts me in mind of the stupid anti piracy ads on DVDs - look how long it took the clowns to figure out that moaning and threatening the audience who'd laid for legal copies didn't help prevent piracy. The move towads thanking people for supporting the film industry was a good one, but for home media it's still nonsense to make that kind of industry cruft unskippable....

s7ryf3925pivug

There’s always some noisy or disease-ridden bastard within a five seat radius. It’s not UHD HDR. They overcharge for popcorn. I’m not interested in communing with strangers anyway. I guess Spielberg likes to ride on buses or is talking through his bum.

theteal

Communal experience? Funk that, I go to the cinema to be immersed in the massive screen and enveloped in the sound from all angles. If I was the the only person in the room, the experience would be all the better.

I’ve got a quality 58” screen with a satisfactory 5.1 system, this setup does the job nicely. If films were available to buy from day one for home viewing, I’d probably never set foot in a cinema again. Maybe films would make more money if they followed such a model. As it stands, apart from the odd standout release, I’m quite happy to wait for the BR, Netflix, Sky Movies release in the vast majority of cases.

johnny_ultimate

Two things I believe:

1. The cinema experience is superior wherever possible.

2. Streaming is here to stay, and has had significant benefits (bigger audiences for films, funding / releases for films that might otherwise not get made etc...).

It's time to make peace with the changed landscape. I still fully support filmmakers standing up for the big screen experience and making their films for that purpose, but equally it's naive to ignore the reality of the matter.

Netflix is getting better and better - Roma, Shirkers, Buster Scruggs, Private Life, Okja, High Flying Bird, Meyerowitz Stories, 13th etc... prove they have good and sometimes great films in them (albeit with quality control all over the place). Mubi is a godsend for screening interesting international films that'll never get anywhere near a cinema screen here. Even as someone who goes to the cinema a few times a week most of the time, streaming is essential and knocking down some of the barriers to entry for so many people.

Ultimately, it's down to whatever peaceful co-existence can be carved out - it's encouraging to see Netflix belatedly making some concessions in that respect and giving films like Roma some time on the big screen. If directors like Christopher Nolan still make stunning films in 70mm, and all sorts of directors make films best appreciated on a two-storey tall screen... then one can only hope seeing the cinema will survive for many decades to come. Couldn't imagine watching a film like the recent blast of absolute joy that is One Cut of the Dead in anything other than a communal environment. But the most important thing is the films are out there for all, although I'm sure the cinema-lovers among us will keep ensuring cinemas themselves have a healthy role to play

Sad Professor

I don't see the problem with forcing Netflix to give their films a decent theatrical release if they want to compete for major awards so that some non-subscribers and cinemagoers can see the films the way most movies have being presented for over a century. Yeah there's all kinds of problems with the modern theatrical experience and maybe it's already as good as dead, but that doesn't mean it should just be abandoned and the red carpet laid out for Netflix. Will people still feel this way in a few years time when they are paying for multiple streaming services all with their own exclusives? Do you think the creative freedom Netflix is currently giving filmmakers (often without a whole to show for it) will continue when they are no longer under pressure to rapidly expand their catalogue before the rug of licensed content gets pulled out from under them? I think people are being naively optimistic about what the future of streaming will be like.

Franz Von Peppercorn

I think people are a bit too worried about Netflix. It’s fairly safe, and streaming in general is definitely safe.

ThePott

I've decided I'm gonna record a podcast on this in a couple weeks cause I think it's a pretty interesting debate. A Few initial thoughts.

Spielberg sounds snobbish and out of touch here. For one if you want to attack Netflix that's one thing as far as film output; I get it they have had plenty of misses when it comes to their originals but for them it's always been a question of quantity over quality.

When you have someone the calibre of Martin Scorsese making a film that it is unlikely anyone else would have financed then you should really question if their presence is valid in the moviemaking landscape.

I understand it isn't just a case of Netflix as a platform but more to do with the 'sanctity' of the theatre experience but I think it's far too late to save it in some regards. So many projects are not succeeding in theatres already, people are more than happy to wait until a film hits streaming or torrent sites, the big budgeted stuff will always fare relatively well (although there will be some big bombs) but some of the real films being hurt theatrically are the smaller films, the independent film scene is moving to VOD and streaming so in doing this you could be ruling out a whole new generation of younger talented filmmakers. Even that aside you are ruling out filmmakers like Scorsese, Cuaron, Soderbergh, The Coen Brothers, JC Chandor as just some examples.

Say what you want about their output but it does seem they are giving creative control to their directors for better and worse and Spielberg backing this is sad and a bit pathetic IMO. Also seems slightly dismissive of TV films judging off a previous statement he made with his logic being that if you made a film for Netflix then it is a TV film and can go win Emmys. Which is weird considering his first big film was a tv movie. Or maybe hasn't really noticed the rise of fantastic television but I suppose that's a different point about where the line blurs between both mediums.

I think this would just be another instance of the Oscars being out of touch if this gets much support. Spielberg seems like a man who has lost his passion for making movies in my opinion, hope he gets persuaded about this subject at least.

mikhail

Suppose Spielberg gets his own way. All it'll do is underline the complete irrelevance of the Oscars.

speedboatchase

For the right movie (comedy, horror, or something like Bohemian Rhapsody), a great audience can elevate the experience. Similar for something that is truly groundbreaking (Avatar, Gravity). I hope that cinemas and Netflix can co-exist, although I suspect that certain types of movies (indie movies, especially) are in real danger as a cinemagoing experience. Cinema will probably end up being a place for big-budget spectacles or low-budget horror movies. We're already heading that way - mid-budget dramas are dead as a dodo.

I think Spielberg's issue is based on the money Netflix is throwing around right now - for example, a $50m Oscar campaign for Roma (Green Book's was $5m). They're using blunt force tactics to supplant Hollywood, HBO, everyone. It's working too, and others are following their tactics. How does Spielberg feel about Disney deliberately not making the live-action Lady and the Tramp remake a streaming exclusive for their Disney+ service, forgoing cinemas?

I don't want Netflix to win, because I like going to the cinema and I think HBO quality over quantity approach is better for the TV viewer, but they're an unstoppable force. It's never too late to buy Netflix stocks, cos they will be around for decades.

Guy:Incognito

Why was there never a push for straight to video or TV movies to be included?

Sad Professor

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why was there never a push for straight to video or TV movies to be included?

Because they usually weren't very good. And because there was already an award ceremony (the Emmys) for tv produced stuff. But in the event that they were good enough to win an Oscar, then giving them a token release in LA or NY in order to qualify wasn't a big deal.

expectationlost

television only really became a widespread thing in the 1940s/50s so was there a shown in theatre rule before then?

Sad Professor

expectationlost wrote: »

television only really became a widespread thing in the 1940s/50s so was there a shown in theatre rule before then?

I assume. Where else would they have shown them?

expectationlost

Sad Professor wrote: »

I assume. Where else would they have shown them?

yes so they might not have been a rule stated that it must be shown in theatre, so when was the rule added. Or was there a rule saying it must be shown for a week etc?

batgoat

If it's a good film, I want the opportunity to see a cinematic release tbh.

is_that_so

expectationlost wrote: »

yes so they might not have been a rule stated that it must be shown in theatre, so when was the rule added. Or was there a rule saying it must be shown for a week etc?

They do have a rule.

https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/oscar3.htm

expectationlost

is_that_so wrote: »

They do have a rule.

https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/oscar3.htm

in 1929?

Heckler

Unless its a movie that kinda needs to be seen on a big screen to do it justice eg. Gravity i'm happy to watch at home. Again an example, I can't see how watching a movie like Three Billboards would be significantly enhanced by watching it in a cinema as opposed to on a TV at home.

Ok the cine- and audiophiles have a point but for the average watcher its no biggie.

Franz Von Peppercorn

expectationlost wrote: »

in 1929?

That’s the modern oscar rules for 2019.

Not sure why you care about 1929 but I bet at least one of the rules (at least 7 consecutive days in an LA county based cinema) dates from around then, because that was probably the only way members of the academy could see the movies then.

Guy:Incognito

Sad Professor wrote: »

Because they usually weren't very good. And because there was already an award ceremony (the Emmys) for tv produced stuff. But in the event that they were good enough to win an Oscar, then giving them a token release in LA or NY in order to qualify wasn't a big deal.

Surely Netflix is closer to TV than to cinema so and should be in the Emmys?

It's basically made for TV movies with more money.


I'm a Netflix subscriber, I dont view it as the same as going to the cinema .

Franz Von Peppercorn

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Surely Netflix is closer to TV than to cinema so and should be in the Emmys?

It's basically made for TV movies with more money.


I'm a Netflix subscriber, I dont view it as the same as going to the cinema .

Why should where a movie be most commonly seen have anything to do with its quality.

The compromise at the moment seems to work. The film must have a theatre release.

Mark Hamill

Don't the people who vote in the oscars just get screeners for many or even all of the films they vote on? Spielberg saying their votes don't count now or something?

johnny_ultimate

Interesting take from Paul Schrader here:

https://twitter.com/badinfinite/status/1102076490387202048

Sums up a few of the concerns I have with Netflix’s approach. Their quantity over quality approach means stuff gets lost in the mix. Not everything gets the push Roma does. There’s an interesting Japanese film called River’s Edge being released on Netflix in the next week or two - I fear like many others that’ll largely disappear into the ether. The ‘disposable’ nature of Netflix means a lot of films disappear from the conversation quicker than they do with a good festival, cinema, home release, awards circuit run. Many viewers may never be alerted of a film’s existence on Netflix (algorithms and automatic recommendations are a terrible method of curation).

There’s also the serious concerns over what films exactly are being picked up. Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s great Netflix is supporting films that mightn’t get funding otherwise, and often at a healthier budget (The Irishman, Roma). But there’s entire countries’ output and types of film that are barely present on Netflix. Independent and arthouse cinemas are already subsisting in prestige fare to support their more niche, art/world film offerings, and it’s vital they can keep doing what they’re doing as the range of films available would suffer dramatically if not. Thankfully there’s the likes of Mubi offering an alternative, but the biggest player having a relatively narrow purview is noteworthy (after all, for the dozens and dozens of original films released by Netflix only a tiny portion are keepers).

As said, it’s a complex situation and far from an either/or: there’s room for more elegant, cooperative agreements rather than one clan trying to clip the wings of the other.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Not sure. I’ve definitely watched more foreign language tv and movies on Netflix than I otherwise would have.

And their popularity is growing in India and other non western countries where presumably there’s a lot of local content.

Their recommendations need a tweek - a list of independent movies or foreign movies related to what you’ve already watched would be interesting.

is_that_so

expectationlost wrote: »

in 1929?

I doubt there was much of a need for it for a very long time. I know there was a change in 2016. Even if they do alter it again their goal is to protect film releases and not the Netflix business model.

Frank O. Pinion

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The cinema experience is superior wherever possible.

https://www.currys.ie/ieen/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/samsung-qe85q900-85-smart-8k-hdr-qled-tv-10186914-pdt.html

What Irish cinema experience is better than that?

batgoat

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

https://www.currys.ie/ieen/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/samsung-qe85q900-85-smart-8k-hdr-qled-tv-10186914-pdt.html

What Irish cinema experience is better than that?

Given the choice, I'd still prefer to see the latest Scorcese in a cinema before watching it on a TV, regardless of how big the TV is. Theatrical screenings are a very much so different experience. Actually find it sticks with me to a far greater degree.

Frank O. Pinion

batgoat wrote: »

Given the choice, I'd still prefer to see the latest Scorcese in a cinema before watching it on a TV, regardless of how big the TV is. Theatrical screenings are a very much so different experience. Actually find it sticks with me to a far greater degree.

It's not just the size, it's the quality of the screen too. That thing at one's home, in a blacked out room, would be a vastly superior visual experience. Also, I don't know about you, but my TV room doesn't have an extremely distracting illuminated EXIT sign.

SimonTemplar

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Two things I believe:

1. The cinema experience is superior wherever possible.

I'm sorry but that is just not true. I've had screenings where people walked in 15 minutes after the movie started and switched on their phone's torch for a good few minutes trying to read their ticket's seat and find their place; groups of giddy teenagers treating the cinema as a place to sit and chat rather than watch a film; numerous distracting brightly lit phone screens; people actually answering phone calls typically beginning the conversation with 'I'm in the cinema bit go ahead'; people kicking the back of my seat throughout the film; etc; etc.


If the point of cinema is to immerse the audience in the movie to a greater extent than is possible with home cinema, all of the above simply reduces a person's ability to enjoy and appreciate the film.



I do agree that watching films on a phone or tablet or a laptop is terrible. I have a nice 60 inch TV with a decent sound system in a room with black-out curtains. If I sit down to watch Roma, I know there will be absolutely no distractions and I am able to loose myself in the movie from the opening frame. If I go to a cinema to see Roma, there is always a risk that my screening will be ruined, or at least in some way compromised, by the inconsiderate behavior of others. And there is nothing more disheartening than thinking all the seats around you are empty only for some couple to walk in 10 minutes into the film and sit right beside you with loads of noisy sweet packets that they've brought from home. That won't happen at home.



I used to see pretty much all the new releases in the cinema but I've had too many screenings ruined that I made the transition to home viewing for about 75% of the films I see and I don't regret it. If I do see a movie in the cinema, I typically go to The Lighthouse whose clientele are typically better behaved on average than the multiplexes (they also have cardboard popcorn containers rather than rustley paper bags which is a god send), but I have had one or two bad experiences there also. I go to a quieter multiplex in the suburbs on a weekend morning if I want to see a movie not in The Lighthouse. Screen is usually only about a third full at that time.



I'm aware that people like me, who are very attuned to audience annoyances, are in the minority, but for people like me the cinema experience is definitely not always superior. It SHOULD be but not always.

Teddy Daniels

dreamers75 wrote: »

Being honest I have yet to see a decent netflix movie.

By that i mean a movie netlfix bought or made, they all sound and look great in trailers but none have been above average.

I have hopes that the Irishman will change all that .

Decuc500

I saw the new Neil Jordan film, Greta, at the Dublin Film Festival the other night. It's a fabulously creepy film. You could feel the tension and disquiet in the audience building as the film progressed.

There were gasps and nervous reactions at all the correct moments in the film. It was a great communal feeling of everybody being freaked out together and it was infectious.

That's the experience that can never be repeated at home and one of the reasons why the cinema experience is so good. And yes, a film festival audience might be better behaved than your average multiplex but there's still lots of popcorn munching and some talking going on. A small price to pay for a better viewing experience.

Teddy Daniels

Decuc500 wrote: »

I saw the new Neil Jordan film, Greta, at the Dublin Film Festival the other night. It's a fabulously creepy film. You could feel the tension and disquiet in the audience building as the film progressed.

There were gasps and nervous reactions at all the correct moments in the film. It was a great communal feeling of everybody being freaked out together and it was infectious.

That's the experience that can never be repeated at home and one of the reasons why the cinema experience is so good. And yes, a film festival audience might be better behaved than your average multiplex but there's still lots of popcorn munching and some talking going on. A small price to pay for a better viewing experience.

I have a cinema room purpose built in my home, it lacks the other viewers but apart from that it’s every bit as good as the cinema experiance.
I respect that you like the group tension of watching with others but you must understand that the Dublin film festival cinema goer is much more of a preferred co watcher than the normal version.
I like watching with people I know. Spielberg wants to force the choice but I feel the market should decide.

For instance I’d go to a showing of Star Wars in a cinema tomorrow as I believe many would.

johnny_ultimate

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is just not true.

I can assure you it is absolutely true that I believe the cinema experience is superior wherever possible

It's a shame you've had bad experiences in the cinema. I personally can count on one hand the amount of properly bad experiences I've had in a cinema over the last decade or so, and as I said I probably go on average twice a week. I'm lucky to live near some of the best cinemas in the country with an audience that tends to skew towards the cinephile, absolutely. I know not everyone has that luxury, and the breaking down of that barrier is a major benefit of streaming and VOD. But again across dozens of cinemas and hundreds of screenings I've had a minuscule number of bad experiences. That's merely anecdotal evidence, sure, but what else can we go on?

But there's other reasons I prefer the cinema. I'll happy chime in with the others who love the communal experience, and it's helped me appreciate quite a number of films more than I would've if I watched on my own. Again, happy to accept people disagree with that. I tend to find good cinemas better equipped to display films - even with the settings properly tweaked, I find a lot of HD and ultra-HD TVs just don't look as good and have that overly digital look top-tier DCP projectors don't (not to mention that TVs have a set aspect ratio, whereas masked screens look much better than just a rectangle of empty space on a TV). And a cinema screen is always bigger - even if I had the luxury of a dedicated home cinema room (which, as someone who has to rent for the forseeable future, I don't) with an incredibly large screen / projector a cinema screen will always be exponentially larger.

I still watch craploads of films at home, because of course I do! I won't not watch a film because it's not in a cinema, and there's been cases I've been happy to settle for watching something home due to the inconvenience of trying to get to see it on the big screen (An Elephant Sitting Still, most recently). I can't stress enough that I think there are major benefits to streaming and being able to watch any given film at home: it's incredibly positive that almost anyone (broadband issues aside) can watch Roma without having to luck out and have an arthouse cinema nearby. But I for one love the cinema, and it will be my first choice wherever possible

Frank O. Pinion

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I tend to find good cinemas better equipped to display films - even with the settings properly tweaked, I find a lot of HD and ultra-HD TVs just don't look as good and have that overly digital look top-tier DCP projectors don't (not to mention that TVs have a set aspect ratio, whereas masked screens look much better than just a rectangle of empty space on a TV). And a cinema screen is always bigger - even if I had the luxury of a dedicated home cinema room (which, as someone who has to rent for the forseeable future, I don't) with an incredibly large screen / projector a cinema screen will always be exponentially larger.

Again it's not just about size. An 8K HDR screen is visually superior than most (all?) Irish cinema screens. Better colours, detail, etc.

"Overly digital"? You mean clearer, crisper...a better picture?

Sad Professor

If I ever buy a house (an increasingly unlikely prospect) the first thing I'll do is make a home cinema out of the living room. Not owning your own home, as johnny_ultimate said, can make having a proper home cinema quite difficult, either due to lack of space, inability to modify the property, or just not wanting to have too much stuff to move when the landlord decides he's selling or renovating.

johnny_ultimate

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Again it's not just about size.

But it's pretty important Watching a film on a towering screen with a high quality theatrical sound system (where you don't have to worry about whether the sound's too loud for housemates / neighbours) is IMO an ideal way to immerse oneself in a film completely.

"Overly digital"? You mean clearer, crisper...a better picture?

As absurd as it sounds, cleaner and crisper isn't necessarily better. I mean, just look at The Hobbit - perhaps the cleanest picture to ever grace a cinema screen and it all looked weird and artificial. Content that looks best in Ultra-HD - nature documentaries, video games and the like - tend to be designed for that purpose, whereas films aesthetically tend to be made with a cinema projector in mind.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good Blu-Ray restoration of a film that, on a good display, manages to capture the vibrancy and detail of a film. This is unambiguously a good thing. Equally, there's been many films I've seen where an LED/OLED screen makes a film look less convincing - I tend to point to CG as a good example of this, where even a well-optimised high quality TV can often make everything look fake and plastic in a way you wouldn't get with a properly calibrated cinema projector.

Then there's the issues with digital noise: DCP files are many times less compressed than most widely used streaming / digital home formats. No matter how good the TV (the best of which sadly remain prohibitively expensive for most) there's still quite some time to go before content is easily and widely available in a high enough quality to take advantage of that. Throw a Blu-Ray up on a big screen vs a proper 2K DCP and there's a massive difference quality wise that's considerably beyond the raw pixel differences between the two.

It's great that TVs are getting better. It's even better that enthusiasts out there are sharing the optimal settings to make sure a film looks as good as it can on any given TV. Hopefully one day in the not too distant future TVs that currently cost €16,000 will be more affordable to those of us who can only afford a fraction of that on a TV - since I watch plenty of films at home, I'd like to see them in the best quality I can. In the meantime, a tenner trip to the cinema ain't such a bad deal, and can't see that changing even if I did have an 8K TV in my living room

A tight, intimate, or personal film? Home watch

Big, brash, bombastic? Cinema all the way

Means that the films where I need to be invested and focused on I can be by watching at home.
For the tentpole film, I want to feel the sound and be awed by the event.

Dravokivich

I don't get the argument at all. The movie should be accredited on its own merits. It doesn't matter much where it came from. All it needs is a minimum run in the cinema. Sky are doing this too.

Sad Professor

The minimum theatrical run is the point of contention. Netflix only want to do token theatrical releases, the bare minimum to qualify for awards, if that. And going by this thread and twitter, it seems most people feel even that shouldn't be necessary - sure all films are the same - which must be music to Netflix's ears. Spielberg just wants to force them to give award worthy films a limited theatrical release of 4 weeks. It doesn't seem like a lot to ask given that other distributors take massive financial risks putting non-blockbuster films into theatres. Netflix has the money and most of their films (ahem) aren't award worthy, so it's not like they'd have to do this with many of their films.

Much of the pushback against this on social media seems to be taking the form of "old, out of touch white guy telling us our straight-to-streaming films aren't real movies, get him!", but there's more to it than that. Hollywood isn't any less corporate and soulless than Netflix and along with the multiplexes Hollywood carries most of the responsibly for the decline of the theatrical experience to the point that people would rather stay home and watch some second-rate Netflix film with Will Smith or Adam Sandler than go to the cinema. But the idea that Netflix cares more about film than Hollywood is just absurd. They programme through data and are only giving freedom to filmmakers now because they are desperate for content.

ThePott

Lot of misinformation in that post, I'm afraid

Sad Professor wrote: »

The minimum theatrical run is the point of contention. Netflix only want to do token theatrical releases, the bare minimum to qualify for awards, if that.

Totally untrue, the contention for Oscars requires a film to be played for 7 consecutive days in Los Angeles Country, Roma played 3 weeks in America in around 100 theatres. Not to mention international theatres where it also played heavily.

Sad Professor wrote: »

And going by this thread and twitter, it seems most people feel even that shouldn't be necessary - sure all films are the same - which must be music to Netflix's ears. Spielberg just wants to force them to give award worthy films a limited theatrical release of 4 weeks.

Studios in the past have played with the whole 1 week eligibility and had movies come out for one week just to qualify for Oscars before releasing properly later in the year, it's nothing new and they are happy to game the system as well. Let's not act like the poor studios don't mess with the rules to win awards too.

Sad Professor wrote: »

But the idea that Netflix cares more about film than Hollywood is just absurd. They programme through data and are only giving freedom to filmmakers now because they are desperate for content.

I don't think people really believe Netflix care about cinema for some altruistic reason, it is for content, no doubt. However there is plenty of independent smaller films that have gotten a bigger platform for distribution from Netflix.

The only reason Spielberg and members of the academy are annoyed now is because the easier access to Roma made other foreign language distributors face tough competition for their awards hopes and Netflix are more willing to throw money at an awards campaign and it can seemingly work.

Spielberg has grinded that Netflix axe before but the truth is the rules for the Academy in general are outdated with regards to what qualifies and streaming wasn't considered. They do need to update their rules because streaming is only going to be more prominent in the future.
As I said Netflix aren't playing ball in some aspects but let's not act like everyone plays fair come awards season.

I'm not saying Netflix are a great purveyor of cinema but they do give some creative freedom and budget to director's who otherwise wouldn't get it, regardless of their reasoning. They have deep pockets, Spielberg and Hollywood are understandably concerned because what if next year they have 10 films they want in the Oscars race.

It's not a white or black issue, there's plenty of grey areas. Probably should be noted also that Spielberg had a vested interest in Green Book doing well as Amblin has a stake in the Chinese distributors of the movie so maybe he is not happy that he could have lost to a Netflix movie.

The rules need updating in general cause Netflix and streaming is not going anywhere and with such a large platform they shouldn't be discounted.

There's lots of factors at play, it's not that easy.

Sad Professor

ThePott wrote: »

Lot of misinformation in that post, I'm afraid



Totally untrue, the contention for Oscars requires a film to be played for 7 consecutive days in Los Angeles Country, Roma played 3 weeks in America in around 100 theatres. Not to mention international theatres where it also played heavily.

I’m not sure how this contradicts what I said. A 7 day theatrical run in two cities is a token theatrical release, the bare minimum needed for Oscar consideration, as I said. Roma’s release was not typical of Netflix’s release strategy for films. Or their preferred strategy. Netflix have repeatedly stated their opposition to the theatrical window.

Other studios doing an award season run to qualify in advance of a wide release a month or two later is not equivalent to Netflix doing the bare minimum before sending the film straight to their catalogue.