4 ms·
I think he's taking the wrong approach in his argument. Convincing people that a streaming movie should not be considered a movie seems like an impossible task.
by cooperadymas 8y ago
I think he's taking the wrong approach in his argument. Convincing people that a streaming movie should not be considered a movie seems like an impossible task. This apple is green, so it should be considered a pear.
The easier route would appear to be changing the rules for the Oscars to require a wide, long, exclusive theatrical release, or some other nomenclature which will preclude streaming services, or at least cost them a significant amount of money.
If that's what he wants for the Oscars then whatever, but trying to convince people that streaming movies are technically TV sounds ridiculous. Anyway, have at it, lest it quicken the Oscar's inevitable demise.
- turc1656 8y agoI think you're on the right track with this. The issue, apparently, for Spielberg is the definition of a movie. From the article it seems that his definition includes the requirement that a film must be shown in theaters to be a movie. I don't think the average person thinks of movies that way. Especially not in today's world with Redbox and streaming services. Personally, I never really thought about the definition right now, but I think a crude definition would include something regarding runtimes since I think part of what defines a movie is its length. You can do more with additional time than a 30 or 60 minute TV episode can do. However, you can do more with a miniseries or episodic TV over the long term with regards to character development, story arcs, etc. I think the definition of a movie has to be somewhere between the individual episode and the miniseries.
- Kaiyou 8y agoLength is a poor criterion. Movies used to be shorter than they are nowadays. Forty to fifty minutes wasn't unusual in the 1940s for cinema.