11 ms·
Banning Netflix, Amazon from Festivals and Awards Is Wrong
- hbnyc 9y agoThis is ripe for a new awards ceremony inclusive of all platforms.
- acchow 9y agoIMDB should host one :)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Slippery_John 9y agoPotential conflict of interest since IMDB is owned by Amazon.
- justinzollars 9y agorotten tomatoes should host one : )
- alecco 9y agoOh god, please no. They are even worse than the Academy.
- Kadin 9y agoI've been thinking about this, and I think you need to work backwards from the existing awards and what makes them "tick" in the context of the industry. Why does anyone care about the awards? - Directors and producers care about the awards, because winning an award will get your picture seen by lots of people (which means more recognition for all involved, and money for the investors). As a result of this, directors tend to hew to the formats specified by the awards bodies. - Producing a film that doesn't conform to the requirements (i.e. not shown in theaters) is perceived as "riskier" and has less upside potential -- therefore it's not worth investing in as heavily. Unsurprisingly, the output tends to have obviously lower production values. This reputation is self-reinforcing once established; see straight-to-video releases in the 80s and 90s. - Viewers, inundated with material, use the awards as a selection filter in determining what to watch, and theater chains tend to run award-winning movies longer, making them more accessible. So if someone wanted to beat the current awards system at its own game, what they would need to do is basically guarantee directors/producers that there was a strong upside potential, so they'd invest and produce high-production-value (and hopefully, high quality) movies. If Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/HBO/whatever got together and made a sort of equivalent to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, put together a broad-based judging mechanism (like the Oscars has), and then jointly agreed to give airtime to winning films on their respective platforms, that might make the awards very relevant indeed. So, modest proposal: the streaming platforms conduct an auction for the right-of-first-refusal to winning films before the awards are opened; basically guaranteeing a payout and perhaps some publicity package to the top films. (There'd be no requirement that the winning film accept the offer, I suppose, but it would be money on the table. Presumably lots of money.) The various streaming platforms would still get exclusivity over some limited period if they were the top bidder (since otherwise, why are they going to bid? they want platform exclusives, nothing else matters to them). The goal would be two simultaneous, benevolent (to the viewers/audience) arms races: one, between the streaming platforms (to win the auction for winning films pre-award); and two, between filmmakers (to obtain and spend the money necessary to produce an award-winning film, with the guarantee that if it wins, it will get in front of a lot of eyeballs). I think something like that could snowball on itself and become a Big Deal pretty rapidly, given the incredible amounts of money that are shifting into streaming right now. If you look at the money people spend on cable TV (sometimes $50-100/mo just on programming) and imagine it getting shifted to streaming services, that's going to create an industry that makes the total spend on theater tickets look like floor sweepings. The quality of the content should reflect that.
- dumbfounder 9y agoGoodbye Cannes and Oscars. You do this and you will make yourselves irrelevant.
- sddfd 9y agoI don't think so. Netflix, Amazon, etc. have some great entertainment, but they seem to avoid serious, emotional, social, and political topics. Instead they keep producing tons of supernatural/superhero series. That kind of stuff was never particularly popular at Cannes anyway. I guess what I am saying is that even though they share the medium, they do very different things with it.
- TheJoYo 9y agoyou should watch the Netflix series that have serious, emotional, social, and political topics.
- sddfd 9y agoWould love to! What would you recommend?
- oarsinsync 9y agoBoJack Horseman is a standout show for me. It uses an over the top colourful cartoon format to provide the necessary levity to counteract the dark themes woven through the show.
- BookmarkSaver 9y ago> Instead they keep producing tons of supernatural/superhero series. No, that's just the stuff that is most popular and visible, just like in almost every other venue of the film industry. Dig slightly deeper, just like in actual cinema screenings, and they offer plenty of lower-key content.
- sddfd 9y ago
- TaylorGood 9y agoI had posted on Twitter from a comment here that "good cinema is good cinema no matter the release medium" – a hollywood writer targeted my tweet in regards to Spielberg comments. He said: "His argument is that the very definition of “cinema” is the movie theater. Are you saying that a very good film shot and released on NBC should be allowed entry to the Oscars? That’s what the Globes and Emmys are for." So I said: The source of production and viewing outlet is less relevant than 10 years ago. At 30,000 feet the end user would say a movie is a movie and, some don’t prefer a movie theatre. His response: "So you’re saying that TV movies should be eligible for Oscars? And, if so, should the Emmy awards for those films be eliminated?" My response: "No, I’m not saying any of that. I’m not in that industry. A movie is a movie to me and most the world. That’s all" The bottom line: Strong opinions and ego are flaming internal Hollywood politics, which, are disregarding the enduser.
- Raphmedia 9y ago> The source of production and viewing outlet is less relevant than 10 years ago. I couldn't agree more. My living room tv is a 65" 4K monitor. It cost me around $999 during sales. The perceived size of that screen at such a low distance gives the impression of looking at a bigger screen that the one at the local cinema. We watch Netflix on it using two pairs of high quality headphones. This results in a better viewing experience than going to the cinema. If I really felt like going there, I would simply burn some butter in a pan and play some crying children sounds in the background.
- adventured 9y agoAnd next up, plausibly even better ways to simulate massive viewing at home via virtual reality tech getting perpetually better. Obviously home projection tech is amazing now as well, if one wants to leave the glass behind.
- fein 9y agoA 110" wide powered projector screen and a decent 1080p projector will run you less than $1000. I did my full setup for about $730 with an Optoma HD27. Have not used the TV since.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Kadin 9y agoAn impressive shot... at their own foot. The only thing Cannes is going to hurt in the long run is its own relevance within global popular culture. If they want to restrict themselves to movies that have been shown in French theaters as defined and regulated by the French government etc. etc., I suppose it's their prerogative to do so. But they are sticking their heads in the sand if they don't realize that audiences are less interested in that particular subset of media than ever. (I don't think movie theaters will ever go away, at least not soon, but using them as part of the definition for "what is a movie" is stupid.) I hope that Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Hulu, and others will continue to spend money on good cinema and continue to deliver it audiences in the way that audiences want to watch it. If they play the long game, they're going to win. Let the industry crusties pat each other on the back (this is politer than the metaphor I was originally going to use) at their awards -- audiences have an appetite for good storytelling and money to spend on it.
- pradn 9y agoCannes has little to do with popular culture. It's an elite event, open to industry insiders and artists. A regular person can't just buy a ticket to go to Cannes anyway. The situation is roughly analogous to the US Academy requiring movies to play in the US for some time. (There are more restrictions, but it's in a similar spirit.)
- rurban 9y agoActually they can. Just take part in what's called the Int. Cinephile Society with a lot of older French folks showing up at the screenings there. Many of them don't know how to queue up, constantly jumping the line, so they are not very much liked there. Typical waiting period is one hour in the line.
- wrsh07 9y agoIt's kind of expected, right? Here's an industry that is existentially threatened. It's natural for them to lash out at the companies that are thriving
- androck1 9y agoThe Post's article has more details and a link to the original source (which is behind a paywall): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/26/cannes-film-festival-bans-netflix-films-from-competition-also-no-more-selfies https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/2... Sounds like the core of the issue involves "French cultural exception" which "mandates a 36-month delay between a movie’s theatrical release and streaming date." It's not clear to me if Cannes cares about the 36-month period (I can't imagine...) as much as theatrical release. If the latter, films like Manchester by the Sea which were released in the theaters would still compete at Cannes. Seems absurd, particularly that this is enshrined in law, but that's just me.
- adventured 9y agoGiven the disaster ratings at the latest Oscars, Netflix and Amazon might just as well go ahead and start their own new awards shows and lock out old Hollywood. It's obvious who has the power now, old Hollywood is a little dog barking at a couple of tigers. "Oscars Drop to All-Time Low 26.5 Million Viewers" https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-oscars-eye-new-low-early-numbers-1091636 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-oscar...
- twblalock 9y agoThis is a prime example of an industry responding the wrong way to being disrupted.
- chomp 9y agoI don't understand where this cheerleading for these multi-billion dollar companies started. First off, these companies aren't banned at all. They are free to show them. They can't compete unless they show their movie in a French cinema, which they refuse to. The only way to legally watch these movies like Okja is to subscribe to these companies. If Cannes gives out an award, you can't go see it in an independent cinema, you can't buy it on disc, you must subscribe to Netflix or Amazon. I completely side with Cannes on this fact. You can't celebrate film by promoting the distributor (and in this case, their subscription model). Netflix and Amazon are going to continue their quest to destroy cinemas, and in this case, French business. If Netflix and Amazon want to start their own awards, then they can go ahead and do it. I'll make sure to stay away from it.
- doorbumper 9y agoYou act as though seeing it in an independent cinema is an advantage? Isn't a month of Netflix's subscription cheaper than going to the cinema? That's the real problem. Trying to charge that much for a single viewing of a single movie. Consumers will cheer for whoever is not trying to screw them over at any given time. Cinemas have taken advantage of consumers for decades, and continue to try to do so by banning content from their festivals.
- chomp 9y agoIt is an advantage because it's independent of the producer. They don't have a lockdown on the content. You can only watch a Netflix movie, on Netflix. You can't watch it on Amazon, nor Google Play. Promoting independent access to this media is a good thing.
- jonreem 9y agoAnd paying more to see the movie just once in a controlled theater that isn't your own is so much better? You still have absolutely no control over the media and you are paying more money to more middlemen.
- 9y ago
- otaviokz 9y agoThey should just create their own awards, you know, with black jack and hookers. Seriously though, anything that curves to Hollywood's caprices isn't that great anyway.
- bdreadz 9y agoJust make good content. Make a new award ceremony. Invite everyone.
- wwweston 9y agoI'm going to push back on the case that this kind of exclusion would somehow make these awards / festivals irrelevant. That's unlikely. The power of the recognition they extend has much less to do with how broadly inclusive they are; it has much more to do with whether whatever they put the spotlight on is something that resonates with general audiences, with enthusiasts, and with others who work in the medium. As long as Cannes and the Oscars are functioning well as one kind of curator, they'll probably remain relevant. Now, if those left out were to start some sort of new award or festival, and it were to become as reliable a curator of attention as the currently prestigious festivals and awards. Or if it became more so. You'd need the participation of services that have a broad reach, who could draw attention to it, if only there were a few of those left out in the cold for pushing their new model who might want to do such a thing...
- AJ007 9y agoOne of the differences of being in my 30s, rather than 20s, is discovering things I thought were very relevant and influential are sometimes totally unknown. In the short term, Cannes and the Oscars may be very relevant. Yet, if something were to happen where they lost relevance for a younger generation, in another decade or two not only the relevance will have vanished but so to would much of the popular awareness they even existed.
- bubblethink 9y agoBanning users from enjoying art because they use vpns or don't care for DRM is also wrong. It's hard to care about what feuds traditional studios and these streaming companies get into. They deserve each other.
- PeanutNore 9y agoI've read elsewhere that film festivals like Cannes also perform a vital business function for independent filmmakers whereby distributors attend to find movies they want to buy the rights to distribute to more theaters in various countries, and filmmakers bring their movies there seeking this to try and get their film onto more screens. For Netflix and Amazon exclusives, this part of the film festival is completely irrelevant, and I would imagine that the people who use film festivals to shop for independent films to distribute would rather not waste their time,
- butterfi 9y agoAs an avid movie watcher, this means nothing to me. Gatekeep your self-indulgent, self-congratulatory, award shows. Pontificate all you want about what "film" is or isn't. I'm not going to movie theaters on a regular basis because they are noisy, expensive, and often not worth the price a premium ticket. The genie is out of the bottle.
- WheelsAtLarge 9y agoSeems to me that it's only a matter of time before these festivals open the way to streaming services. They are dominating the creation of episodic content simply because of the money they are spending. Festivals can't ignore all that content. Also, streaming services can just start there own and stream it which givis them more content.