3 ms·

AFAIK the Academy Awards have a similar rule - a movie must have a cinema release before it can be considered for nomination. (More specifically, a run for at l

by olavk 9y ago

AFAIK the Academy Awards have a similar rule - a movie must have a cinema release before it can be considered for nomination. (More specifically, a run for at least seven days in a Los Angeles County theater!) Made-for-TV movies have their own competition and awards, like the Emmy awards. I don't see how this will make Cannes less relevant. It doesn't make Cannes less relevant that it doesn't award daytime soaps or commercials or whatever. Focus on a specific niche - cinematic movies - arguably will help it stay relevant, as long as cinemas exists. (Whether cinemas will continue to exist is a different question. I suspect Netflix is a much larger threat to traditional flow TV than to cinemas.) In any case, Cannes is not "forcing" anybody to do anything. They are just clarifying what kind of movies can be considered for the festival.

oliwarner 9y ago
But your assertion there is that made-for-TV (or made-for-Netflix, or whatever follows) movies intrinsically have less value. You're saying a movie can only really be "cinematic" if it comes out in a cinema. That's exactly the nonsense we're talking about here. Distribution channel doesn't mean anything. There are strong correlations between being able to put on a show and production values, but it's not causative. Define a movie by its actual qualities. Runtime, dialogue(?), even picture format... But forget about distribution. Lots of people have cinemas in their houses now. Where they don't have to pay £30 to be surrounded by sweaty strangers and sit on uncomfortable and dirty seats. Plus snacks and transport.
- olavk 9y ago
  Where do you get "less value"? They are just delimiting what kinds of movies the will considered for their festival. The Academy Awards also have certain restrictions on the picture format in place to prevent straight-to-video movies from consideration. If you don't like going to the cinema, why do you care about Cannes at all? It is a film festival which celebrate cinema and the associated mystique and glamour. Nobody is preventing you from watching whatever you want in your home cinema.
  - oliwarner 9y ago
    You're saying only movies shown in a cinema can be cinematic. That's the value you're discounting. Again, I think you need to separate the building from the art.
    - olavk 9y ago
      Never mind the word "cinematic", the point is the festival and similar movie awards have a certain definition for what kind of moving picture entertainment they consider eligible for their awards. The definition includes that the general public should be able to go to a cinema and buy a ticket to see the movie on a big screen. That's not saying other forms of entertainment cannot have value, just that Cannes is about a certain form.
      - oliwarner 9y ago
        I don't disagree that that's their definition. I wish you'd stop repeating it. It's that definition that's so stupid. Conflating "form" with distribution as if the latter affects the first. No, I'll give you a chance... But how do you think they review these things? It used to be DVD screeners but (ironically, here) Cannes set up an online VOD service for screeners. How do you assess something that has to be available via cinemas, on computer via a wonky streaming service? This rule is simple (and classic French) protectionism of a distribution channel that is failing to compete.
        olavk 9y ago
        It is a film festival for cineastes - film lovers or film snobs if you will. Its whole culture. For them there is a big difference between the big-screen cinema experience and watching home video. It is certainly a bigger difference than just the means of distribution. I think it was David Lynch who said "If you haven't see my movies in a cinema, then you haven't seen my movies". You may not care for this difference, but why does it anger you so that others do?
pluma 9y ago
For a recent example of this see "Red Pill", a documentary about the Men's Rights movement. They were backed via Kickstarter and promised backers a "pre-release" download. Because they wanted to be eligible for an Academy Award nomination they ended up releasing the movie in LA (and New York I think?) for the minimum run necessary and then waited another couple of months for the official release as digital download. Because of the Academy Award rules they held back the "pre-release" downloads until just before the release of the digital download version. They angered a lot of backers by saying it was still technically a pre-release because the digital download hadn't been available yet although the film had already been in cinemas and available for private screenings for months at that point. It's a good example for bad communication. Especially when upset backers were basically told the "pre-release" would happen at the last possible moment to combat file sharing, but that's another tangent.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  That was just bad execution. The Academy Awards only requires that a film be screened for at least 2 weeks in LA and that it not be available for streaming prior to the screening window, however concurrent streaming is acceptable. (Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/89th-general_entry_guidelines.pdf http://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/89th-general_entry_...) For example, Netflix' Beasts of No Nation was available for streaming the same day as its premiere in LA and was eligible for Oscars, though it was not nominated for any.

by olavk 9y ago

oliwarner 9y ago

But your assertion there is that made-for-TV (or made-for-Netflix, or whatever follows) movies intrinsically have less value. You're saying a movie can only really be "cinematic" if it comes out in a cinema. That's exactly the nonsense we're talking about here. Distribution channel doesn't mean anything. There are strong correlations between being able to put on a show and production values, but it's not causative. Define a movie by its actual qualities. Runtime, dialogue(?), even picture format... But forget about distribution. Lots of people have cinemas in their houses now. Where they don't have to pay £30 to be surrounded by sweaty strangers and sit on uncomfortable and dirty seats. Plus snacks and transport.

olavk 9y ago
Where do you get "less value"? They are just delimiting what kinds of movies the will considered for their festival. The Academy Awards also have certain restrictions on the picture format in place to prevent straight-to-video movies from consideration. If you don't like going to the cinema, why do you care about Cannes at all? It is a film festival which celebrate cinema and the associated mystique and glamour. Nobody is preventing you from watching whatever you want in your home cinema.
- oliwarner 9y ago
  You're saying only movies shown in a cinema can be cinematic. That's the value you're discounting. Again, I think you need to separate the building from the art.
  - olavk 9y ago
    Never mind the word "cinematic", the point is the festival and similar movie awards have a certain definition for what kind of moving picture entertainment they consider eligible for their awards. The definition includes that the general public should be able to go to a cinema and buy a ticket to see the movie on a big screen. That's not saying other forms of entertainment cannot have value, just that Cannes is about a certain form.
    - oliwarner 9y ago
      I don't disagree that that's their definition. I wish you'd stop repeating it. It's that definition that's so stupid. Conflating "form" with distribution as if the latter affects the first. No, I'll give you a chance... But how do you think they review these things? It used to be DVD screeners but (ironically, here) Cannes set up an online VOD service for screeners. How do you assess something that has to be available via cinemas, on computer via a wonky streaming service? This rule is simple (and classic French) protectionism of a distribution channel that is failing to compete.
      - olavk 9y ago
        It is a film festival for cineastes - film lovers or film snobs if you will. Its whole culture. For them there is a big difference between the big-screen cinema experience and watching home video. It is certainly a bigger difference than just the means of distribution. I think it was David Lynch who said "If you haven't see my movies in a cinema, then you haven't seen my movies". You may not care for this difference, but why does it anger you so that others do?

pluma 9y ago

For a recent example of this see "Red Pill", a documentary about the Men's Rights movement. They were backed via Kickstarter and promised backers a "pre-release" download. Because they wanted to be eligible for an Academy Award nomination they ended up releasing the movie in LA (and New York I think?) for the minimum run necessary and then waited another couple of months for the official release as digital download. Because of the Academy Award rules they held back the "pre-release" downloads until just before the release of the digital download version. They angered a lot of backers by saying it was still technically a pre-release because the digital download hadn't been available yet although the film had already been in cinemas and available for private screenings for months at that point. It's a good example for bad communication. Especially when upset backers were basically told the "pre-release" would happen at the last possible moment to combat file sharing, but that's another tangent.

gamblor956 9y ago
That was just bad execution. The Academy Awards only requires that a film be screened for at least 2 weeks in LA and that it not be available for streaming prior to the screening window, however concurrent streaming is acceptable. (Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/89th-general_entry_guidelines.pdf http://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/89th-general_entry_...) For example, Netflix' Beasts of No Nation was available for streaming the same day as its premiere in LA and was eligible for Oscars, though it was not nominated for any.