|
|
Post by Critical on Mar 3, 2019 3:23:09 GMT
Apparently it wasn't just Spike Lee and Jordan Peele who were unhappy about Green Book winning (there were reports that quite a few people did not clap when the award was announced). Check out Chadwick Boseman's look  I feel that. |
|
lonnie
FORT Addict
Posts: 1,251
|
Post by lonnie on Mar 3, 2019 5:39:37 GMT
Yeah in terms of super hero movies from last year, I would probably take some others over Black Panther. It had the most hype though.
Concerning oscar nominees from the past, I should have watched There will be blood and No country for old men sooner. They were two of the best oscar nominated movies I saw recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amy Lee on Mar 4, 2019 16:04:21 GMT
Apparently it wasn't just Spike Lee and Jordan Peele who were unhappy about Green Book winning (there were reports that quite a few people did not clap when the award was announced). Check out Chadwick Boseman's look I feel that. I love Chad even more now. I think we've all had that reaction to BS happening before our eyes. I also like him because of his connection to Denny. For the people in the back, Roma and Black Panther are on Netflix.😎 I think there are too many older members in the academy . They like sanitized movies like this that give us a rosy picture about a white man and a black man becoming friends.  IMO, they vote for movies like that because it makes them feel like they're not actually as racist as they are. What Critical said. 🙌🏾 🎤 |
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Mar 4, 2019 16:25:21 GMT
deadline.com/2019/03/netflix-steven-spielberg-oscars-streaming-twitter-1202568702/ The debate currently circling the Academy regarding eligibility rules fascinates me. I can honestly say that I think there are arguments on both sides of the debate which are very valid. To summarize the story - Steven Spielberg sits on the board of governors and plans on proposing changes to the eligibility rules in response to Netflix wins. Current rules say that a movie has to be released to a minimum number of theaters for a few days in order to be eligible for Oscars. With a couple of noteworthy movies that Netflix has produced in the past couple of years, they have released them the bare minimum time in order to make them eligible. It worked quite well for Roma this time around. I see Spielberg's argument. A great deal of the work the Academy does is to promote cinema ... going to the movies. Clearly it's a challenge for the movie industry right now, as evidenced by the number of actors or directors who are recording "thank you for coming to the theater" messages that run before films. It does seem kind of odd that Netflix can consider themselves a movie or a TV show or TV movie depending on where the best chances lie. I also see the argument made by Ana DuVernay and Netflix challenging this. Now I"m fortunate enough to live in a city where most films get play - at least in one or two theaters. So I can see films I want to see. But I didn't always have that luck, and can remember being frustrated when there'd be buzz around a movie and I could not see it. I'm not sure what the best solution is. But I do think it's a relevant debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by justCoz on Mar 4, 2019 17:21:00 GMT
Long before the days of Netflix, I thought it was strange that movies that hadn't been released to lots of theaters could be eligible for an OSCAR. I kind of understood it, but never liked it. I'd be fine if they changed that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Mar 5, 2019 3:23:31 GMT
Honestly? Spielberg sounds bitter, elitist and out of touch. I'm definitely for Netflix films being eligible for Oscars for the following reasons:
1. Not everyone has access to/live near a movie theater
2. Movies on Netflix are more inclusive
3. More opportunity for women/poc/foreign directors whose projects get snubbed by the bigger studios, but yet produce content that people want to see.
4. With the rise in ticket prices/general rudeness not everyone wants to go to the theater. During Spielberg's heydey ticket prices were $2.75-5.50. In my city, seeing a first run movie will set you back roughly $13.00 now, and to avoid children/general rudeness the 21+ seats are even more.
I can't help but notice how Scorsese's attitude is so different, despite being around the same age. Rather than spitting on new ways to show media he has embraced it, and has a few projects coming out on Netflix himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Mar 5, 2019 4:58:33 GMT
Honestly? Spielberg sounds bitter, elitist and out of touch. I'm definitely for Netflix films being eligible for Oscars for the following reasons: 1. Not everyone has access to/live near a movie theater 2. Movies on Netflix are more inclusive 3. More opportunity for women/poc/foreign directors whose projects get snubbed by the bigger studios, but yet produce content that people want to see. 4. With the rise in ticket prices/general rudeness not everyone wants to go to the theater. During Spielberg's heydey ticket prices were $2.75-5.50. In my city, seeing a first run movie will set you back roughly $13.00 now, and to avoid children/general rudeness the 21+ seats are even more. I can't help but notice how Scorsese's attitude is so different, despite being around the same age. Rather than spitting on new ways to show media he has embraced it, and has a few projects coming out on Netflix himself. Well said, I agree 100%.. |
|
|
|
Post by momrek06 on Mar 5, 2019 5:48:21 GMT
Honestly? Spielberg sounds bitter, elitist and out of touch. I'm definitely for Netflix films being eligible for Oscars for the following reasons: 1. Not everyone has access to/live near a movie theater 2. Movies on Netflix are more inclusive 3. More opportunity for women/poc/foreign directors whose projects get snubbed by the bigger studios, but yet produce content that people want to see. 4. With the rise in ticket prices/general rudeness not everyone wants to go to the theater. During Spielberg's heydey ticket prices were $2.75-5.50. In my city, seeing a first run movie will set you back roughly $13.00 now, and to avoid children/general rudeness the 21+ seats are even more. I can't help but notice how Scorsese's attitude is so different, despite being around the same age. Rather than spitting on new ways to show media he has embraced it, and has a few projects coming out on Netflix himself. Well said Kao! I actually thought of one more thing .... 4 HOUSEHOLDS can SHARE one NETFLIX account!!! That is a really awesome that Netflix allows that!!! 👍🏼 |
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Mar 5, 2019 10:53:58 GMT
Honestly? Spielberg sounds bitter, elitist and out of touch. I'm definitely for Netflix films being eligible for Oscars for the following reasons: 1. Not everyone has access to/live near a movie theater 2. Movies on Netflix are more inclusive 3. More opportunity for women/poc/foreign directors whose projects get snubbed by the bigger studios, but yet produce content that people want to see. 4. With the rise in ticket prices/general rudeness not everyone wants to go to the theater. During Spielberg's heydey ticket prices were $2.75-5.50. In my city, seeing a first run movie will set you back roughly $13.00 now, and to avoid children/general rudeness the 21+ seats are even more. I can't help but notice how Scorsese's attitude is so different, despite being around the same age. Rather than spitting on new ways to show media he has embraced it, and has a few projects coming out on Netflix himself. I don't disagree with most of this (though I'd say that in my experience, the problem attendees are the over 60 crowd who talk through an entire movie and don't see it as a big deal). However, isn't the role of the Academy to promote cinema, which includes promoting theatrical attendance? Part of the reason that ticket prices have gone up is that attendance has gone down due to people waiting to watch at home (which has gotten easier with streaming services and better with the technology and size of TVs and other devices) and they have to cover operating costs regardless of how many seats are filled. Theater operators have been doing what they can rolling out reclining seats, theaters with dinner service, etc. But if the role of the Academy extends beyond film making to cinema, then promoting theaters is part of it. Access for all is important in film distribution. But I do think that lines are blurred when Netflix can strategically decide for the purposes of awards which productions to use to go for Oscars, and which to go for Emmys. I see that in somewhat the same vein as actors and actresses who use category fraud to be submitted in a supporting role because the field for actor/actress is too strong ... even though they are in all but 3 scenes of a movie. I don't know - I can understand the passion on each side, but I can recognize that each side of the debate has some valid points. |
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Mar 5, 2019 22:23:30 GMT
Sadly, I remember when Spielberg's work was original and innovative. Unfortunately that doesn't apply for his last offerings, and I say that as someone who actually enjoyed Ready Player One.
I think I would feel differently if the studio's aims were different, but they aren't. In the past, truly interesting and innovative movies were made, but unfortunately that's not the case today; it's all superhero movies, sequels, and revisions of movies in the past that have done well. Instead of "Is this a quality, funny, or interesting film it's purely "Will this make 75+ million the first week of release?" and it shows. If you're not interested in blockbusters and you're not fortunate enough to live near a theater that shows foreign/arthouse/alternative flicks you're not going to go to the theater much.
Unfortunately, studios don't bankroll passion projects/innovative films the way they used to, and the end result is that we all used to lose out until Netflix started picking up those films. The film "Mudbound" got turned down by a lot of studios until Netflix picked it up. So did "Roma" and that was a movie by an established director! The major studios are only interested in "certain" stories being told, so if they shouldn't be complaining because they are actually part of the problem. There are certain stories/points of view that are told ad nauseum, and I'm sorry, but I'm not spending money to see that anymore.
The second issue is the theaters and what they choose to show. Most of the time they prefer the blockbusters/children's movies because that's what makes the bulk of their money, while smaller films get extremely limited showtimes/time in theaters. I wanted to see "Sorry to Bother You" but it was literally at my local theater (a huge cineplex) for a week. Art house theaters are also guilty of this; while I was able to see "At Eternity's Gate" "Cold War" was only there for 3 days and I missed it.
Netflix is a way for directors to reclaim their creativity/do passion projects/create work that the studios won't touch and get them in front of the biggest audience possible, and I applaud it. And the studios determine which films are "Oscar bait" as well; those movies are almost always released in the fall, and they make the stars start campaigning early; Eddie Redmayne and Anne Hathaway campaigned hard for at least half a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amy Lee on Mar 6, 2019 14:20:29 GMT
Read your post. You must marry me, Kao. Say yes!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Mar 6, 2019 15:03:51 GMT
LOL Amy Lee!
|
|
|
|
Post by libgirl2 on Mar 6, 2019 15:18:03 GMT
Sadly, I remember when Spielberg's work was original and innovative. Unfortunately that doesn't apply for his last offerings, and I say that as someone who actually enjoyed Ready Player One. I think I would feel differently if the studio's aims were different, but they aren't. In the past, truly interesting and innovative movies were made, but unfortunately that's not the case today; it's all superhero movies, sequels, and revisions of movies in the past that have done well. Instead of "Is this a quality, funny, or interesting film it's purely "Will this make 75+ million the first week of release?" and it shows. If you're not interested in blockbusters and you're not fortunate enough to live near a theater that shows foreign/arthouse/alternative flicks you're not going to go to the theater much. Unfortunately, studios don't bankroll passion projects/innovative films the way they used to, and the end result is that we all used to lose out until Netflix started picking up those films. The film "Mudbound" got turned down by a lot of studios until Netflix picked it up. So did "Roma" and that was a movie by an established director! The major studios are only interested in "certain" stories being told, so if they shouldn't be complaining because they are actually part of the problem. There are certain stories/points of view that are told ad nauseum, and I'm sorry, but I'm not spending money to see that anymore. The second issue is the theaters and what they choose to show. Most of the time they prefer the blockbusters/children's movies because that's what makes the bulk of their money, while smaller films get extremely limited showtimes/time in theaters. I wanted to see "Sorry to Bother You" but it was literally at my local theater (a huge cineplex) for a week. Art house theaters are also guilty of this; while I was able to see "At Eternity's Gate" "Cold War" was only there for 3 days and I missed it. Netflix is a way for directors to reclaim their creativity/do passion projects/create work that the studios won't touch and get them in front of the biggest audience possible, and I applaud it. And the studios determine which films are "Oscar bait" as well; those movies are almost always released in the fall, and they make the stars start campaigning early; Eddie Redmayne and Anne Hathaway campaigned hard for at least half a year. The best way to see those smaller movies is to get them from your local library (if your is lucky enough to carry movies). We have plenty of art house, smaller films that don't make it to most of the theaters. |
|
|
|
Post by MissScarlet on Mar 7, 2019 22:57:45 GMT
I agree with Spielberg. Shows or movies who are available for viewing on TV services rather than the theater (I don't count those released in a few theaters simply in order to qualify) are TV movies & should be treated as such. They should be eligible for Emmys, but not Oscars. Oscars should be for theatrical releases. I agree with his reasonings for this also.
As to being accessible to all, I don't see Netflix or Amazon Prime, or any other TV service as accessible to all. The truth is that the theater is more accessible to all. TV pay services are available to only those who choose or are able to pay a monthly/yearly fee, that isn't cheap, in order to view their offerings. Theaters are available to anyone willing to pay a 1 time relatively inexpensive fee to watch in a big screen theater, often with comfortable seating & decent sound. To me that's more accessible.
I say this as a recent Netflix/Amazon Prime user. For many years none of this was accessible to me at all.
I've never been & still am not a PayTV subscriber. My TV runs off a simple electric plug in the wall & a set of rabbit ears.
Many of the TV series that have been winning Emmys for a while now, have not been accessible to me. I resented that. I felt that it was unfair to include shows that are on channels/networks that need to be paid for by a monthly inclusion service. I still resent that.
However, I've accepted this as a part of life now that I just have to get used to. Pay the big bucks for a private service or just get left out. I choose get left out. I won't pay for a service that I get for free from others.
The Fire Stick with Netflix/Amazon Prime was a gift for a year. I'm enjoying it a lot. I figure if I choose to keep it after that point I'll just cancel my house phone which is approximately the same cost. I seldom use it anyway. I enjoy watching shows & movies that I never could get before, but consider them a luxury, not a necessity.
Giving Oscar eligibility to those shows is exclusionary of those who aren't able or willing to Pay-to-play on exclusive services, plus damages the viability of theaters and those movie who are shown there.
|
|
|
|
Post by betty80 on Apr 3, 2019 19:33:22 GMT
Banning Netflix from Oscars could break law, DoJ warns"The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has received a letter from the Department of Justice suggesting the organization could be violating antitrust law if it attempts to exclude Netflix from the Oscars. The letter, first published by the entertainment magazine and website Variety, warns Academy CEO Dawn Hudson that changes to Oscar eligibility rules could “suppress competition.” Netflix’s production “Roma” won three Oscars at this year’s Academy Awards but multiple Oscar-winning filmmaker Steven Spielberg — who is also a member of the Academy’s board of governors — is an outspoken critic of Netflix’s inclusion in the glitzy ceremony. Spielberg has said Netflix films should be considered as made for TV productions and thus should be included in the annual Emmy Awards for the television industry. He is reportedly pushing others on the Academy’s board to help force an eligibility change. The DOJ letter dated March 21 from antitrust chief Makan Delrahim warned that any eligibility requirements that did not have a “procompetitive justification” could “raise antitrust concerns”. “If the Academy adopts a new rule to exclude certain types of films, such as films distributed via online streaming services, from eligibility for the Oscars, and that exclusion tends to diminish the excluded films’ sales, that rule could therefore violate Section 1.” A source familiar with the situation said Netflix didn’t know about the DOJ letter until Variety reported it and that Netflix was not in touch with the DOJ. The Academy and the DOJ did not immediately reply to CNBC’s requests for comment. For more on this story, see Variety’s full story. Correction: Netflix was misspelled in a previous headline. --CNBC’s Julia Boorstin contributed to this report."
|
|
|
|
Post by justmythoughts on Jun 14, 2019 3:50:28 GMT
Maybe I'm alone in this, but exact accuracy in a storyline isn't all that important to me. Movies are about escapism, telling a story in an entertaining manner. I've never been one to see a movie about real people & figure the story is an exact depiction of the real story. I see these movies as an interpretation written by the writers & film makers to entertain the viewers & make some money. Many times even the characters aren't real, but rather based on numerous people all bundled together into one character. I accept that just fine. This is in order to tell the story more efficiently that the film makers want to tell. To an extent they are all fiction. I'm fine with that. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't speak on the entertainment value of it, but I do plan to see it. Other people I know have seen it & say it's very good. That's all that matters to me.
I just feel that, with so much fighting nowadays over equality and racism, putting something like this in a non-fiction film that was suppose to be TRUE, brews up unnecessary rage. If this had been something the character really had to deal with, then by all means, put it in. But to put it in for effect bothered me. Such a sensitive subject, and it added to people's anger..... even though it NEVER HAPPENED. |
|
lonnie
FORT Addict
Posts: 1,251
|
Post by lonnie on Jun 14, 2019 15:34:49 GMT
^^
That's messed up. It reminds me of the huffington post site.
|
|
I feel that. 
IMO, they vote for movies like that because it makes them feel like they're not actually as racist as they are. 
