Can a Netflix Movie Be Considered a "Real" Movie?

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Mar 1, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Spaghettiows

    Spaghettiows Forum Resident

    Location:
    Silver Creek, NY
    So why can't Netflix, Amazon, HBO and all of the other interested parties simply develop and sponsor their own big-time award show to compete with the Oscars? I think these parties have the juice to do it big enough to make a splash. Sure it will ruffle feathers, but why should any of them really care about ruffling feathers?
     
    Hot Ptah and audiomixer like this.
  2. Spencer R

    Spencer R Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    The only leverage the old way of doing things has over Netflix and other streaming services is trying to withhold the “prestige” of the Oscars from them, which is hilarious given that the actual made-for-TV-movie/two-hour episode of Behind The Music known as Bohemian Rhapsody was up for numerous Oscars.

    I suspect that ultimately directors such as Cuarón will be happier to have their passion projects such as Roma greenlighted and made and distributed online than to chase a statue that is a joke in so many ways to begin with.
     
    Gumboo, Hot Ptah, spindly and 4 others like this.
  3. PhilBorder

    PhilBorder Senior Member

    Location:
    Sheboygan, WI
    If he's so concerned why does't he do more to improve the theater experience. Imax screens that aren't really imax... 15 minutes of obnoxious previews... tickets that often seemed overpriced (admittedly very subjective: though I'd gladly pay $25.00 to see Lawrence of Arabia in 70 mm properly projected)... theaters that seem to be designed more as video arcades than theatical experiences... how much of his and Lucas' $ did they plow back into making the theaterical experience better for people? I don't mean special effects...
     
  4. To me this sounds like separation of styles in order to segregate for awards and revenue purposes.

    I do not know the rules governing such awards. I am not in the business.
    I can understand a differentiation between "Movies".
    1) Originally released in theaters...With possible releases via other methods as time passes.
    2) Only released in theaters...never to be released any other way.
    3) Originally released via streaming services...Possible released via other methods.
    4) Originally released direct to Home (DVD, Blu-Ray, VHS and so on) with possible other methods as time passes.

    Up to about 1975 watching a movie in the theater was the only way to view a movie. Yes there were personal home theaters but most did not have such opportunities.
    Then came taped movies. While this was really something, those movies were viewed on whatever TV you had and there was no special sounds. This made the experience the same as watching a TV show...which was not that great.

    Then things began to really change and soon the average home owner could have a special experience at home. Better screens (projectors, rear projection, just plain bigger than 27") as well as multi channel sound and sound systems dedicated to home theater.
    This was still expensive but now within reach of the masses.

    Today we can get pretty much anything. HUGE high definition screens. VERY capable audio systems that really do give a theater level sound to your home system. Players up to the task of giving excellent output, Media providing very high quality material.

    Because the average home owner now has the ability to purchase viable theater options for home use the theater has lost much of its luster and drawing power.
    Enter the pitfalls of going to the theater (time, distance, expense, other rude customers, etc) and the theater just does not draw like it once did.

    In my opinion the theater still has a viable place in entertainment and I hope they stick around for as long as I desire to use them.

    Maybe it is time to use some newer divisions in the "Theater" realm...For award demarcations if nothing else.
    This way the movies could be judged within a sharper focus based on how they were originally produced and released.
    With the huge array of options we have for getting to the movies I think keeping them limited to original release may be the best way because eventually pretty much all movies become available somehow.

    The game has changed. While I understand Mr. Spielberg's point I think he is whipping a dead horse with his current approach.
    I think he does not want to be judged against a movie that did not use the big budget, huge Hollywood style machine, to get produced and released.
    This is just not the way things are anymore.

    A great movie is still a great movie, regardless of the production and release method.
     
    SandAndGlass, Hot Ptah and Spencer R like this.
  5. audiomixer

    audiomixer As Bald As The Beatles

    This is a ridiculous statement. Anything I watch at home on my 65" calibrated television and home theater sound system gets my 100% undivided attention.
    Why?!? Because there are no other human beings around to ruin the experience!!!
     
  6. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Around here, Wednesday would probably be the best day to go. Both Regal and AMC offer discounts on Tuesdays, so I suspect it's no longer the slowest day of the week!
     
  7. poidog

    poidog Senior Member

    Location:
    Mesa, AZ
    Thoughts for Mr. Spielberg:

    For many years my wife and I have had this conversation:

    Did you want to see ____________?

    Yeah, but that can wait for DVD.
    _____________ is more a theater movie.

    Should the movie watching population be polled as to which movies are " theater movies" to qualify for Oscar consideration?

    Also, aren't most Academy voters watching screeners at home?
    Should that disqualify their vote?
     
  8. malcolm reynolds

    malcolm reynolds Handsome, Humble, Genius

    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Spielberg has always taken the Oscars way too seriously. It is almost sickening. He wanted to win one so bad.
     
    Hot Ptah and somnar like this.
  9. This is somewhat like the old days when theaters owned their own chains, would produce a movie and put in their chains. The difference is technology not artistic intent. It sounds to me like they may need to alter the rules to take all of this into account. While I think theatrical experience is too expensive, I would miss theaters as they were a communal experience essential to the experience of a film. Films play differently often times at home than they do on a70 inch screen.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  10. Spencer R

    Spencer R Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    Napoleon remarked that soldiers will die for a piece of colored ribbon. In that sense the Oscars do serve a purpose in that they motivate the studios, both the traditional ones and upstarts such as Netflix, to bankroll quality movies in the attempt to win a gold statue and validate that “you like me, you really like me.”
     
  11. George Co-Stanza

    George Co-Stanza Forum Resident

    Location:
    America
    Spielberg is a legend, but this is an odd hill to die on, so to speak.
     
  12. I was spoiled growing up in San Francisco. Starting in the 60s and especially throughout the 70s and 80s, San Francisco had the highest quantity of movie screens per capita than any other city in the US (yes even New York and LA). San Francisco also had Mel Nobikov's (whose name was used by the Coen Brothers as a character) Surf Theater chain that only showed repertory, foreign and whatever was an indie film at the time.

    I went to the original Surf Theater (where Woody Allen worked in Play it Again Sam) several times a week, watching films by Truffaut, Bergman, Kurwasawa, Antonioni, Hitchcock and pretty much every foreign or indie film that played at his handful of theaters. This was before home video happened. It was such a joy and education to see all these great movies on the big screen.

    I do prefer watching in a theater, but some films are perfectly fine on a good 60" screen and stereo or surround sound system.

    Yes Roma, Cold War and other films financed by streaming services are legitimate films. And yes they also stream many terrible movies, many of which are studio rejects that have found a home on your TV.
     
    SandAndGlass, Hot Ptah and chacha like this.
  13. pscreed

    pscreed Upstanding Member

    Location:
    Land of the Free
    Yeah that pretty much sums up where he is at on everything.
     
  14. rob macd

    rob macd The sunshine bores the daylights out of me

    Location:
    boston ma
    This is like saying a song shouldn’t win a Grammy unless the song is released by major label and played a transistor radio.

    Outdated criteria based on distribution control and major studios.
     
    Old Rusty and Spencer R like this.
  15. Dillydipper

    Dillydipper Space-Age luddite

    Location:
    Central PA
    This is the part of the magic the general public is missing, when every large theater company in America starts working in tandem with the major studios. It may not be a Rico-Law offense, but it offends me, that there are so many great experiences the public misses out on because every mall cinema has to make sure there's at least one auditorium dedicated to the same "popcorn" movie...but not one screen made to focus on films based on audience edification, rather than hyping the latest from whomever's sitting on Kimmels' couch tonight.

    Does that make me elitist? No. It makes the current studio-to-cineplex workflow "educate" rational human beings to "want", and support, lesser entertainment, when there's nobody helping them stay aware of the potential in an artform they are already the fondest of. Would you support a medical system that trains patients to accept and clamor for less, and pay more for it? Would you be supportive of auto manufacturers dropping production of their most economical, ergonomical and ecologically-responsible models to focus on more wasteful, stylish and defective designs, because studies show the public buys more of them if they're allowed to lie about it in their ads? Do you think the Food and Drug Administration doesn't deserve their mission, because the customers at 7-11 have already shown they're perfectly satisfied with "rad" cheesy puffs and "extreme" soft drinks?

    Losing Ebert-style, mainstream review shows may have made it easier for Hollywood to "game the system" in favor of blanketing Rotten Tomatoes with anonymous praises and crowing about it ("Rotten Tomatoes calls it a sensation...says 51% of unverified contributors to Rotten Tomatoes"); but the real loser here isn't so much the public at large, as critical thinking in general. It was the entertainment-tabloid equivalent of getting the Fairness Doctrine wiped off broadcast legislation.

    This thread still hasn't established a baseline that backs-up the supposed difference between "real" movies, and "tv movies". We all know 'em when we see 'em...except in the cases where the exceptions in quality, don't apply to the expectations. Without removing thse definitions from their assumptions, there's really nothing to talk about here, except those damn kids on Spielberg's lawn.
     
    Hot Ptah likes this.
  16. unclefred

    unclefred Coastie with the Moastie

    Location:
    Oregon Coast
    Vidiot is absolutely correct in that the march of technology is inevitable and everything changes. Instead of going to the 'feelies' in theaters, as futurists imagined years ago, we have streaming directly to out homes and played on our technically excellent systems. Perhaps soon, screens and monitors will themselves be gone and replaced with something more revolutionary.
     
    SandAndGlass, 5th-beatle and Hot Ptah like this.
  17. longdist01

    longdist01 Senior Member

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA
    In principle Hollywood is at fault...do people want to see several more reboots of older films continue when there are still stories untold in film be it original screenplays, books adapted or documentary films. I love seeing a cinema screen experience, yes i can choose to watch at home on big flatscreen, and or stream to home. You don't have to guess my answer. So many great films worth seeing if anyone chooses to take opportunities.

     
    5th-beatle and Spencer R like this.
  18. the pope ondine

    the pope ondine Forum Resident

    Location:
    Virginia
    is that gortex? no i get it....theres still nothing like a movie theater for me.....the smell of the air....the crowd reacting to a great comedy? or a tearjerker? (i still remember watching Terms of Endearment and a grown men in tears).....theres something to a communal experience

    netflix should get into the 'movie' movie biz if they want oscars. or create your own awards shows.....'The Streamies'!
     
    longdist01 likes this.
  19. SoundAdvice

    SoundAdvice Senior Member

    Location:
    Vancouver
    Chuck Jones got an 1997 honorary Oscar, despite 99% of viewers watching Bugs Bunny on the small screen.

    Another thing not mentioned is most Academy voters probably watch the choices at home via screeners provided to them. I think they are all plain old DVD format, judging by the 1-2 year old Globe or Emmy screener package I got to flip thru recently.
     
    budwhite likes this.
  20. Claviusb

    Claviusb A Serious Man

    I find it ronic that Spielberg started out with Duel, a made-for-TV movie, that he was probably thrilled as a new director to have released in European movie theaters as a theatrical film. Duel won the Avoriaz Fantastic Film Festival Grand Prize that year. Did he keep the award?

    Just askin'...
     
  21. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    They’re all movies, Steve.

    How many $140m movies does Netflix think it going to be able to produce to fill up its content slots? Whether it cost $140m or $4m people are only going to watch it once. One movie no matter how much it costs only equals one piece of material. I think they’re better off serving up buckets of oysters rather than fishing for a pearl. That’s how the TV networks have done it for 60 years. Hence the birth of the cheap TV movie. And we still watched them! Am I wrong, but on a non-commercial channel there won’t be big bucks generated by a success; a blockbuster can only happen at the movies!
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2019
  22. TheVU

    TheVU Forum Resident

    I get that things change. I just don’t see how watching a movie at home is the evolution of cinema.

    It’s an environment to study film. Take notes. Press pause.

    In the theater, you blink, and you miss something. I had to see Inherent Vice three times in the theater to hear the opening sequence. Well most of the movie for that matter. It says a lot that I wanted to go back that many times to experience it. It’s a ride.
    Then you wait for it to hit home video, to get a little more.

    I just think they’re two different experiences. The Academy Awards one experience.
     
  23. Cheepnik

    Cheepnik Overfed long-haired leaping gnome

    Does the exact same meal taste better in a restaurant than it does at home?
     
    5th-beatle likes this.
  24. chacha

    chacha Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    mill valley CA USA
    As a fellow SF native, I also reminisce back to when all the major studios owned the large theaters downtown on Market St and showed their studio’s films there - the Fox, the Paramount, the RKO Golden Gate, the United Artists, the Fox Warfield etc.
    Great times.
     
    Mazzy likes this.
  25. DarreLP

    DarreLP Forum Resident

    Location:
    PNW
    You could just as easily argue that Netflix is the modern day equivalent of a movie distributor. They just don't bother shipping them to theaters and show it in their own 'theater'.

    For that matter, it could be argue they are a modern day equivalent of a movie studio, as they are financing films.
     
    somnar, PHILLYQ and Hot Ptah like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine