Huh. Weird how when it impacts their bottom line, the Oscars are willing to change their definition of what a “film” is. Kind of kills what little credibility they had left.
Huh. Weird how when it impacts their bottom line, the Oscars are willing to change their definition of what a “film” is.
Kind of kills what little credibility they had left.
It's this aversion to streamed movies that has caused Netflix to do things like buy the New York Theater to show their movies and make themselves eligible/force the Oscars to consider the films.
It's this aversion to streamed movies that has caused Netflix to do things like buy the New York Theater to show their movies and make themselves eligible/force the Oscars to consider the films.
I wouldn’t call that “aversion”. TV movies have existed for a long time, and for some reason their exclusion from the Oscars was never a reason for outcry. Why is that? The Oscars are an industry...
I wouldn’t call that “aversion”.
TV movies have existed for a long time, and for some reason their exclusion from the Oscars was never a reason for outcry. Why is that?
The Oscars are an industry award, it’s criteria are those of a portion of the industry. This has little to do with being fair and logical.
In the end of the day, opening the gates for streaming might do the same for every film-like content there is. Is that what we really want? For Amazon Video, HBO Max and YouTube to be in the same competition as Amblin? Is that even feasible? It’s easy to beat on the Oscars corporative horse, but they represent a certain cinematic tradition, and that’s a good thing for certain folks.
The reason there was no outcry about made-for-TV movies being excluded is because, let's be honest here, the vast majority (if not all) of them were and still are totally shit, and would never...
The reason there was no outcry about made-for-TV movies being excluded is because, let's be honest here, the vast majority (if not all) of them were and still are totally shit, and would never have been in the running in the first place, even if they could have been included. Can you name a single made-for-TV movie (other than maybe some documentaries) that would even come close to being Oscar-worthy (because I honestly can't)? However the same is not true for many Netflix originals IMO, and even just off the top of my head I can name quite a few I think were/are worthy of consideration. E.g. Beasts of No Nation, Gerald's Game, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, 1922, The Two Popes, etc.
And to answer your question; If a YouTube Red production is high enough quality, and worthy of merit, then I actually don't see why it should be excluded either. And as to it being an "industry award", the vast majority of Netflix and even YouTube Red productions employ the very same people and involve the same unions (Screenwriters Guild, Screen Actors Guild, etc.) as their counterparts in Hollywood, so your argument against inclusion based on that criteria kinda falls flat on its face, IMO.
And look, the Academy Awards represents a certain mode of production and it has no obligation to embrace the world. Streaming would do better with its own award. Why is it so important to be part...
And look, the Academy Awards represents a certain mode of production and it has no obligation to embrace the world. Streaming would do better with its own award. Why is it so important to be part of the Oscars? There are enough major players already to create a relevant Streaming Awards or something (or to give more visibility to an award that already exists).
And when I talk about feasibility I’m referring to the actual amount of movies academy awards members have to watch.
there are a few outstanding made for TV movies, e.g. Behind the Candelabra, The Normal Heart, The Girl in the Cafe, and more -- but you're largely correct.
there are a few outstanding made for TV movies, e.g. Behind the Candelabra, The Normal Heart, The Girl in the Cafe, and more -- but you're largely correct.
Can you name a single made-for-TV movie (other than maybe some documentaries) that would even come close to being Oscar-worthy (because I honestly can't)? However the same is not true for many Netflix originals IMO, and even just off the top of my head I can name quite a few I think were/are worthy of consideration. E.g. Beasts of No Nation, Gerald's Game, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, 1922, The Two Popes, etc.
Precisely: there are shit TV movies, shit movies in the theaters and shit movies on streaming. So what’s the point of bringing quality to this argument in the first place? I was answering the...
Precisely: there are shit TV movies, shit movies in the theaters and shit movies on streaming. So what’s the point of bringing quality to this argument in the first place?
I think the argument is that there are no good "made-for-TV" movies, but there are good streaming-only movies and good theatrical release movies. Thus, TV movies are out but the other two are in.
I think the argument is that there are no good "made-for-TV" movies, but there are good streaming-only movies and good theatrical release movies. Thus, TV movies are out but the other two are in.
Until further notice, and for the 93rd Awards year only, films that had a previously planned theatrical release but are initially made available on a commercial streaming or VOD service may qualify in the Best Picture, general entry and specialty categories for the 93rd Academy Awards under these provisions...
Huh. Weird how when it impacts their bottom line, the Oscars are willing to change their definition of what a “film” is.
Kind of kills what little credibility they had left.
It's this aversion to streamed movies that has caused Netflix to do things like buy the New York Theater to show their movies and make themselves eligible/force the Oscars to consider the films.
I wouldn’t call that “aversion”.
TV movies have existed for a long time, and for some reason their exclusion from the Oscars was never a reason for outcry. Why is that?
The Oscars are an industry award, it’s criteria are those of a portion of the industry. This has little to do with being fair and logical.
In the end of the day, opening the gates for streaming might do the same for every film-like content there is. Is that what we really want? For Amazon Video, HBO Max and YouTube to be in the same competition as Amblin? Is that even feasible? It’s easy to beat on the Oscars corporative horse, but they represent a certain cinematic tradition, and that’s a good thing for certain folks.
The reason there was no outcry about made-for-TV movies being excluded is because, let's be honest here, the vast majority (if not all) of them were and still are totally shit, and would never have been in the running in the first place, even if they could have been included. Can you name a single made-for-TV movie (other than maybe some documentaries) that would even come close to being Oscar-worthy (because I honestly can't)? However the same is not true for many Netflix originals IMO, and even just off the top of my head I can name quite a few I think were/are worthy of consideration. E.g. Beasts of No Nation, Gerald's Game, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, 1922, The Two Popes, etc.
And to answer your question; If a YouTube Red production is high enough quality, and worthy of merit, then I actually don't see why it should be excluded either. And as to it being an "industry award", the vast majority of Netflix and even YouTube Red productions employ the very same people and involve the same unions (Screenwriters Guild, Screen Actors Guild, etc.) as their counterparts in Hollywood, so your argument against inclusion based on that criteria kinda falls flat on its face, IMO.
And look, the Academy Awards represents a certain mode of production and it has no obligation to embrace the world. Streaming would do better with its own award. Why is it so important to be part of the Oscars? There are enough major players already to create a relevant Streaming Awards or something (or to give more visibility to an award that already exists).
And when I talk about feasibility I’m referring to the actual amount of movies academy awards members have to watch.
there are a few outstanding made for TV movies, e.g. Behind the Candelabra, The Normal Heart, The Girl in the Cafe, and more -- but you're largely correct.
The vast majority of movies made for e
streaming is also shit...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO_Films
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/top_100_television_movies/
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0077553/?ref_=m_ttls_tt_9
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Peaks:_Fire_Walk_with_Me
The argument isn't about proportions. It's about existence.
Precisely: there are shit TV movies, shit movies in the theaters and shit movies on streaming. So what’s the point of bringing quality to this argument in the first place?
I was answering the comment above.
I think the argument is that there are no good "made-for-TV" movies, but there are good streaming-only movies and good theatrical release movies. Thus, TV movies are out but the other two are in.
Okay, but that’s obviously false.