making the case for that very change, arguing that the Academy Awards, going forward, should allow films that have been seen only on streaming services to be Oscar nominees. We’re talking about films that never play in theaters. That would be real paradigm shift, almost a revolutionary change. So I’ll ask you quite simply, Peter: Do you agree with it? Do you think that’s how the Oscars should now evolve?It’s a complicated question, Owen.
The problem with insisting on the theatrical experience is that the best pictures don’t play cinemas for long. They might do a couple weeks in Los Angeles, if they’re lucky, then resurface on HBO or on demand, where the majority of people see them months later. When “Roma” went up on Netflix three weeks into its limited theatrical release, it was suddenly available everywhere in America at once. And just because it was seen on TV screens doesn’t make it a TV movie.
So do we want to start blowing what’s left of the distinction to smithereens? My biggest concern is that once you open the streaming floodgates, you’re going to turn the Oscars into something wildly overstuffed and unwieldy and sort of hazily defined. Right now, about 1,000 movies open theatrically in one year. If the new rule becomes permanent, the number of things that qualify for the Oscars may multiply by a factor of two or three.
It’s great that the Academy has held the line on theatrical runs until now, effectively forcing Netflix to open its prestige films in cinemas — where purists like us want to see them. But guess who’s standing in the way of that model? The exhibitors. They’re the ones who turned down “Roma,” out of principle, effectively forcing the company to buy theaters where they can Oscar-qualify future contenders.
Such conservative perspective for a trendsetting community. Film is film, why would it matter what medium facilitates the actual viewing of a finished work of art?
Bad education was never intended to be in theaters. I thought the change was for movies with a planned theatrical release
Should probably just cancel the Oscars if filmmakers won’t release them this year. So far none of the 2020 films deserve to be even discussed
💯
OwenGleiberman AskDebruge A film is a film. Who gives a fuck?
OwenGleiberman AskDebruge In regards to the movie going experience. AskDebruge mentions the audience having undivided attention. What? Have you been to the cinema lately? Every time I've been there are adults on their phones ruining it for everyone. I've actually stopped going as much because of this.
OwenGleiberman AskDebruge I think surely it has to be about whether it's the best film instead of where it first premiered. A lot of my favourite movies I saw on TV for the first time. They're not less good because I saw them on a smaller screen. The Oscars need to adapt or die.
OwenGleiberman AskDebruge Movies steamed should have their own category at the the Oscars, or Oscars are going to lose what they're really about; 'The movie experience'. Which requires big screens at movie theaters with all the trimmings.
OwenGleiberman AskDebruge I understand it this year, don’t like it but understand it. It this cannot extend beyond this year. Frankly the Oscars shouldn’t recognize movies that’s don’t play by the 90 day window rule. Oscars are for movies, emmys are for tv
Entertainment Entertainment Latest News, Entertainment Entertainment Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: L.A. Times Health - 🏆 364. / 59 Read more »
Source: TheOnion - 🏆 724. / 51 Read more »
Source: NPR - 🏆 96. / 63 Read more »
Source: DEADLINE - 🏆 109. / 63 Read more »