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.