Spielberg does not want Netflix movies to win at the Academy.

[badlands]

https://t.co/DFBLVWhiJj

Speliberg does have a point. Netflix and movies made for streaming should have their own awards.

[august]

I get both sides. The criteria originated decades before modern tech. When they began making movies for TV, it was decided that the distinction was if
something ran in a movie theatre. Sometimes, direct-to-dvd films technically had a premiere in a theatre for a few days, but there was never a chance of those
winning awards, plus it wasn't the DVD company that produced them.

This is very much like the concern when HBO began sweeping the Emmy awards, when .most people didn't get HBO. TV has embraced the streaming series concept for
the purpose of Emmy, SAG, etc. awards. I guest the biggest fear is that films could double dip, ie win in both Oscar and Emmy ceremonies.

[Michael]

Although I responded in the other discussion with my ideas for the kinds of award categories they could create, I've never been a big fan of awards ceremonies myself. I realize that many support specialists only earn a few minutes of fame from those shows, and they contribute to the success of these productions, but the leading categories usually leave me gagging. I can live without all the awards shows.

[august]

Bruce Campbell said this on Twitter:

Rev some chainsaws while checking out the tweet below:

Steven Spielberg is gunning to make sure Netflix never has another Oscars contender like Roma.

Sorry, Mr. Spielberg, Roma ain’t no TV movie – it’s as impressive as anything out there. Platforms have become irrelevant. Make a movie with Netflix. https://t.co/0gvhlYhJs7

— Bruce Campbell (@GroovyBruce) March 2, 2019

[Boomstick]

Platforms have become irrelevant. So have awards shows, but Hollywood hasn't quite caught on to that yet... :laugh:

[august]

:lol: :bounce:

True dat. Although I guess they do and they don't. The real reason they televise the ceremonies is to boost revenue via advertising for the presenting organizations. And the networks do it, and the stars participate,
in the same way and for the same reasons that People Magazine exists - viewers like to see the objects of their admiration and fandom all dressed up and out of character (and sometimes drunk. :whistle: :drink: )

But if some celeb turns up at a ceremony looking fabulous and generates some buzz, that actually can lead to landing some role. It doesn't increase their talent, but some casting director might think "Oh, wait, that's the
type I need for this role." And obviously, things like the Bradley Cooper/Lady Gaga duet probably quadrupled sales and downloads for that song.

And winning an award can absolutely boost revenue, whether box office or dvd sales or downloads or whatever. Something like The Avengers doesn't need the boost, but some indie or arty film that was made for, say, $10 million, earned $20 million, and then wins a few Oscars
might ultimately get an extra $10 million in ticket sales and another $10 million in downloads that it wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Woody Allen movies are like that - he makes them for only a few million $$, and they're never blockbusters, but so often someone will win an Oscar, so they always make a huge profit percentage wise. i.e they might just gross $40 million... but that might be an 800% return.

[Michael]

So, what you're saying August is, "Let's inject some reality into this fantasy discussion of a happy world without film and television awards."

Okay, sure, whatever. Thanks.

[august]

urprise: perhaps! :bounce:

I should think the people who win awards have their world made happier by doing so, and probably the worlds of their friends, family, entourage, employees, managers, agents, bankers, relators, investment advisers, etc. are probably happier as well.

[Alvin Eriol]

Not sure if there was an equivalent of awards shows in the late 19th Century just before motion pix and audio recordings were introduced, but there was a lot of angst caused by those new platforms and the differences in producing works with these new techs versus live performances and stage plays and sheet music. For some already accomplished in the old formats it was opportunity while others washed out unable to adapt. Then there was the later transition from silent film to "talkies" and the fact many silent actors had never developed their voices to be suitable for an actual audience and newfangled recording tech.

IMO most awards shows are opportunities for celebs and movers-&-shakers to show off and self-congratulate, as well as serving as long commercials to plug any productions that still have profit potential.

[august]

IMO most awards shows are opportunities for celebs and movers-&-shakers to show off and self-congratulate, as well as serving as long commercials to plug any productions that still have profit potential.

Haha - that's not an opinion, that's pretty much the official definition. :jester:

Of course the funny thing is, the topic of the thread was actually what category Netflix movies should be in, which made national headlines, and the primetime news, so a pretty current and relevant topic. That led to whether awards shows really mattered, and then
...I guess that it would be a happy world without awards at all.

I think just about every profession in existence gives out awards at ceremonies, so I doubt it will stop. But, like the beauty pageants, they might just stop being televised... or maybe just move to a niche network (like the SAG awards, which were on ...Bravo, I think?) They moved the main Miss SC pageant to public
television at one point, but now I think it's not televised at all.

[Boomstick]

:lol: :bounce:

True dat. Although I guess they do and they don't. The real reason they televise the ceremonies is to boost revenue via advertising for the presenting organizations. And the networks do it, and the stars participate,
in the same way and for the same reasons that People Magazine exists - viewers like to see the objects of their admiration and fandom all dressed up and out of character (and sometimes drunk. :whistle: :drink: )

But if some celeb turns up at a ceremony looking fabulous and generates some buzz, that actually can lead to landing some role. It doesn't increase their talent, but some casting director might think "Oh, wait, that's the
type I need for this role." And obviously, things like the Bradley Cooper/Lady Gaga duet probably quadrupled sales and downloads for that song.

And winning an award can absolutely boost revenue, whether box office or dvd sales or downloads or whatever. Something like The Avengers doesn't need the boost, but some indie or arty film that was made for, say, $10 million, earned $20 million, and then wins a few Oscars
might ultimately get an extra $10 million in ticket sales and another $10 million in downloads that it wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Woody Allen movies are like that - he makes them for only a few million $$, and they're never blockbusters, but so often someone will win an Oscar, so they always make a huge profit percentage wise. i.e they might just gross $40 million... but that might be an 800% return.

Yes, that's true. I think the example this year was The Green Book, which got a quick re-release for a few days after its win, and pulled in over $2 million more, IIRC. So it's not completely irrelevant.

However, most of the buzz I saw the next day was about Spike Lee's little tantrum when his film didn't win best picture, rather than anything positive. I remember a few years ago (well, probably several now) when Bill Murry was visibly upset that he didn't win. Like on the verge of tears. It was kind of sad, that this stupid little gold statue holds so much
meaning to these people.

[august]

What? You're not suggesting that actors have fragile egos and need constant validation are you? :jawdrop:

[august]

BTW, another take on this, in line with Bruce's Tweet, is here.

[Boomstick]

BTW, another take on this, in line with Bruce's Tweet, is here.

I checked out as soon is it delved into identity politics, but the author is on the right track. Hollywood types love to complain and preach, but they're in a position to make a change. They act like all they can do to make a difference is donate to the Democrats, which is a joke. Donating to a political party, at least the two main ones, doesn't accomplish anything except maintain the status quo.

Imagine if these hypocrites pooled some of their resources and, I don't know, started a private hospital somewhere that could serve as a kind of pilot project to explore how we could reform our healthcare system.

[august]

Norman Spinrad's late 60's sci-fi novel Agent of Chaos dealt with this same idea, suggesting that any "resistance" just gives
an excuse for the power structure to grab more power, and justify their existence, since someone needs to put down the resistance.

As I explained to someone recently, when people start the adversarial political argument thing, you have C-students from Carolina and Clemson (two big state football/party schools)
calling each other dumb...while Harvard and Yale alums just shake their heads while saying "bless their hearts" ....and Russians with doctorates from Oxford rub their hands and say "Excelllllennnt..."