I like the movie theater experience. that said, I don't agree with the idea that there needs to be an extended, exclusive run in theaters.

Quote:

---

Things have changed. Going to the movies isn't nearly as magical for my kids, as it was for me. There are a million other options, and they have catalogs of movies at their fingertips.

---

This. Unless it's a date night at Alamo Drafthouse, it sucks going to movie theaters to put up with loud teens and people that can't STFU or can't stop from texting/social media posting. We still take the kids to MCU movies and Marvel related movies, like the awesome Spider-Verse. However, TV's continue to evolve and it has gotten to the point where it's more comfortable to watch movies at home.

As for Spielberg, he can **** off.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

The silver screen "Experience" has declined a lot, IMO. Even worse when you consider how good televisions are now when 25 years ago they were trash in comparison visually.

---

I think there's fewer big time directors who know how to take advantage of its mystique for sure.

But without the experience, there's no business even making a movie like Dunkirk. Seeing that on the huge screen with the sound and everything made it so much more impactful. There's no way it translates to even great TV/home theater systems.

---

I agree, and theater tech has advance as well, but nowhere near as large of a jump as in-home tech. The experience sucks because of dealing with the theater and with other patrons, generally, and the advantage in technology is somewhat mitigated by being able to dim the lights and watch on your own couch, with your own snacks, with only the people you want.

In 1995, the theater was light years away from what you could watch at home. In 2019 its getting to be only marginally better, thats my point. So, where Spielberg would lead us is to a place where the Academy Awards judges only films intended for theaters, and not those intended for television, but the line there is so blurry as to be totally meaningless, especially with modern blockbuster films also inherently going after in-home markets after release as well.

the academy better be careful...the next step for netflix might just be to come up with a younger, hipper version of an award show that winds up showcasing how old and out of touch the academy has become

NoahAg said:

---

Steven just sounds like a butthurt D-bag.

The movie theater "experience" is a dinosaur of an institution. Rarely do I leave a theater and think "that was totally worth the price."

Give me Netflix/Amazon Prime and the comforts of my own home over high-priced tickets and a theater full of strangers any day.

---

Yeah, where you can spend half the movie posting on Texags, get interrupted by your kids/spouse and all the other distractions present in your own home.

Sorry, but the movie theater "experience" is still alive and well and FAR from being a "dinosaur" based on revenue. You may prefer to sit in your own distraction-filled home, but your thoughts on the state of the institution are way off.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

I agree completely. But Spielberg's contention isn't getting in the way of that or blocking that or hindering art, etc... There's already a spot for TV Movie...the question is just where do you judge those types of releases.

And I'm all for Netflix continuing to produce movies and others to continue as well. The question is just how you view it and what it means/where it's accounted for. It's only going to continue down that path.

---

I understand that there is a TV movie category, but where do you draw the line? How many theaters must a movie run in to qualify and for how long?

Quote:

---

I understand that there is a TV movie category, but where do you draw the line? How many theaters must a movie run in to qualify and for how long?

---

Great question, and I don't know. That's why I mentioned earlier that it works against him when these award circuit films sneak in limited theater releases right before the end of the year but because of industry buzz they're considered. Was that really fair either?

That's why I'm completely in the middle on most of it. Don't think there is a good answer right now on how to categorize them or the preferred medium to consume them etc.

I also agree with the other post that the consumer's access to quality in the home or pocket has grown so exponentially in comparison to the big screen the last 20 years.

honest question...how many of you have recently watched a film strictly because it's nominated for best picture?

many years ago, i really would try to do so, but i ask because i honestly cannot remember the last time for me. so the more i think about it, i think i'm completely indifferent to which films the academy chooses to recognize.

I usually try to see all of the BP nom's. The last couple years I wasn't able to see them all.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Happened last night actually as I watched Free Solo on Nat Geo. I enjoyed it enough but thought it lacked a little something. That something is no doubt the experience of seeing it in the theater had I been able to.

---

Watched this last night and it was great, but I agree. That being said, in short order there will be VR with such convincing sound and visuals that will be so intense and convincing that it will make Imax seem bland by comparison.

This seems pretty simple to me. If it was made to be released on the big screen, the Oscars. If it was made where the only option is to watch it at home, the Emmy's.

RAB91 said:

---

This seems pretty simple to me. If it was made to be released on the big screen, the Oscars. If it was made where the only option is to watch it at home, the Emmy's.

---

So where do you put Roma?

it was made to be released at home, and they released it on a couple of screens only so it could become eligible for the film awards like the Oscars. That's the point Spielberg is attempting to address.

Seems to me the deciding factor should be the Academy itself.

If the movie gets enough votes to be nominated, that should be enough, imo.

jackie childs said:

---

honest question...how many of you have recently watched a film strictly because it's nominated for best picture?

many years ago, i really would try to do so, but i ask because i honestly cannot remember the last time for me. so the more i think about it, i think i'm completely indifferent to which films the academy chooses to recognize.

---

I used to, but since they went to 8+ nominations it became more difficult than just watching 2 or so extra and so I dont bother. It also makes me less likely to actually watch the show which I usually did when I went to extra effort to watch them, honestly.

JJxvi said:

---

The silver screen "Experience" has declined a lot, IMO. Even worse when you consider how good televisions are now when 25 years ago they were trash in comparison visually.

---

And cheap. The last big tv I purchased was over two years ago. 65' Samsung Smart TV for $700 at Walmart. Big, high quality HD tv's are incredibly cheap now.

jackie childs said:

---

the academy better be careful...the next step for netflix might just be to come up with a younger, hipper version of an award show that winds up showcasing how old and out of touch the academy has become

---

I remember when I was younger and less cultured seeing movies win Best Picture that seemed milquetoast, boring, or just generally not that great to watch. As I've grown older I understand exactly why they were winners, but it doesn't necessarily increase my attraction to the product.

I think what we're seeing re Netflix is a quasi-disruptive market force that is able to bring a better product to a seriously mature industry and that can do so at a better price point and with greater ease than the usual Hollywood "process" that you so often see alluded to.

The academy awards are a super-entrenched institution, but as viewership and consumption of movies continues to shift they're going to need to try to keep up with the times or risk being an awards show about a dying art form. (FTR I haven't been to a movie theater in half a decade and probably won't until.....? because I can get just as good of a picture at home and not deal with the crowds and general theater grossness).

Just sort of spitballing, but I think your instinct is right.

Another thought.

What a terribly non-progressive perspective Mr Spielberg has. Movie theaters are huge building that are incredibly inefficient given all the unused space and take immense amounts of energy to heat or cool. The footprint of the buildings plus the huge parking lots associated with them take up a lot of land that could be better served for other purposes or just remain green belt and undeveloped. Not to mention, in most cases you have to drive to a movie theater. Tsk tsk.

For the sake of the planet, ban this unnecessary, outdated, and environmentally unsustainable practice. All movies to a streaming service by 2030!

Bunk Moreland said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

This seems pretty simple to me. If it was made to be released on the big screen, the Oscars. If it was made where the only option is to watch it at home, the Emmy's.

---

So where do you put Roma?

it was made to be released at home, and they released it on a couple of screens only so it could become eligible for the film awards like the Oscars. That's the point Spielberg is attempting to address.

---

That's easy. Just put a threshold for the the number of screens that it has to be released on (maybe time too?). They could figure out what that number should be.

RAB91 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

This seems pretty simple to me. If it was made to be released on the big screen, the Oscars. If it was made where the only option is to watch it at home, the Emmy's.

---

So where do you put Roma?

it was made to be released at home, and they released it on a couple of screens only so it could become eligible for the film awards like the Oscars. That's the point Spielberg is attempting to address.

---

That's easy. Just put a threshold for the the number of screens that it has to be released on (maybe time too?). They could figure out what that number should be.

---

that seems easy, but if you put that threshold too high, you run the risk of ruling out a lot of smaller, independent films

RAB91 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

This seems pretty simple to me. If it was made to be released on the big screen, the Oscars. If it was made where the only option is to watch it at home, the Emmy's.

---

So where do you put Roma?

it was made to be released at home, and they released it on a couple of screens only so it could become eligible for the film awards like the Oscars. That's the point Spielberg is attempting to address.

---

That's easy. Just put a threshold for the the number of screens that it has to be released on (maybe time too?). They could figure out what that number should be.

---

which they have already. Its just ridiculously low. to be considered a movie has to play at least one full week in any theater in LA County with something like one prime time showing and on he weekends before it plays anywhere else. Netflix saw that and hit those requirements with their nominated and eligible movies

nai06 said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

This seems pretty simple to me. If it was made to be released on the big screen, the Oscars. If it was made where the only option is to watch it at home, the Emmy's.

---

So where do you put Roma?

it was made to be released at home, and they released it on a couple of screens only so it could become eligible for the film awards like the Oscars. That's the point Spielberg is attempting to address.

---

That's easy. Just put a threshold for the the number of screens that it has to be released on (maybe time too?). They could figure out what that number should be.

---

which they have already. Its just ridiculously low. to be considered a movie has to play at least one full week in any theater in LA County with something like one prime time showing and on he weekends before it plays anywhere else. Netflix saw that and hit those requirements with their nominated and eligible movies

---

I obviously don't follow this, but it still seems simple. If Netflix is gaming the system in the Academy's opinion, change the rules to weed them out. I love Netflix, but they make TV moves.

Don't think it's about where they're seen, but where they're released.

I don't care either way, but that seems to be the argument. Theatrical release vs Television release.

I watch a lot on Netflix, but this Roma movie looks awful. Won't be watching.

someone mentioned the irishman earlier. in all seriousness, if i'm the academy, i might wait a year before making any changes.

a scorsese-directed mob movie with deniro, pacino, pesci and keitel? that has the potential to be a huge hit and internet sensation and if it winds up being a brilliant film too, then it's going to put the academy in a strange place if they don't even acknowledge its existence because of some self-imposed rules.

The academy is made up of much more that just actors and directors, right? It's animators, costume designers, grips, writers, etc...

The way I see it is if there are academy members working on a project then they should eligible to be recognized regardless of the medium of how the money is collected to produce said project.

The last few weeks I've had time/opportunity to go to the theater to watch a movie, but nothing has really caught my interest, especially considering the financial commitment it takes to get in your car and go. That said, I can get on Netflix or prime and click/browse around until I find something. I'll still attend the theater for blockbusters and movies I rEALLY want to see, but I'm done just going to the theater just to go.

As for the OP, maybe it's time for the Academy to finally add a new award, something like "Best Motion Picture Experience"?

I think it only makes sense for the Academy to revisit their eligibility rules as streaming plays a bigger role.

To work around it, can't Netflix just release for single viewing at a theater? That's the showing for press, critics, and some fans. That's it, 2 hours at the movie theater.

Then it goes to Netflix exclusively.

25 years ago, $2000 bought you a mediocre 40" projection tv. For that money now, you can outfit a modest home theater with a screen 3 times the size and surround sound. No, it's not digital projection with Dolby Atmos, but it's close enough for the majority of people out there.

Hell, for a $100 worth of vr, a pair of earbuds, and a cellphone, you can sit on your couch in a virtual theater. It's not the same thing, but it's close and it's getting better.

There are some movies that you have to see on the big screen. Like audio and mp3s, there will eventually be a "vinyl renaissance" for movies in the theater. But the old model of seeing every movie, no matter the type, on the silver screen is becoming outmoded.

Bruce Almighty said:

---

NoahAg said:

---

Steven just sounds like a butthurt D-bag.

The movie theater "experience" is a dinosaur of an institution. Rarely do I leave a theater and think "that was totally worth the price."

Give me Netflix/Amazon Prime and the comforts of my own home over high-priced tickets and a theater full of strangers any day.

---

Millions of people would disagree with your opinion of the theaters being a dinosaur institution.

---

And Millions wouldn't. See how neither of us made a very good point either way by simply pointing out that millions share or don't share an opinion?

GiveEmHellBill said:

---

NoahAg said:

---

Steven just sounds like a butthurt D-bag.

The movie theater "experience" is a dinosaur of an institution. Rarely do I leave a theater and think "that was totally worth the price."

Give me Netflix/Amazon Prime and the comforts of my own home over high-priced tickets and a theater full of strangers any day.

---

Yeah, where you can spend half the movie posting on Texags, get interrupted by your kids/spouse and all the other distractions present in your own home.

Sorry, but the movie theater "experience" is still alive and well and FAR from being a "dinosaur" based on revenue. You may prefer to sit in your own distraction-filled home, but your thoughts on the state of the institution are way off.

---

https://www.the-numbers.com/market/

Ticket sales have dropped over the past 15+ years. Going to the theater isn't dead by any means, but its also not growing despite more theaters and more people available to go see it. Its declining and its not going to start rising anytime soon.

There's a reason that now more than ever theaters have tried to provide a better experience via more food and drink options and more comfortable seating and reserved tickets. People have more options on how to watch films and the cinema model is having to evolve to remain viable.

Urban Ag said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

The silver screen "Experience" has declined a lot, IMO. Even worse when you consider how good televisions are now when 25 years ago they were trash in comparison visually.

---

And cheap. The last big tv I purchased was over two years ago. 65' Samsung Smart TV for $700 at Walmart. Big, high quality HD tv's are incredibly cheap now.

---

Exactly, and you don't need to spend much more to get a great sound system too. Home theaters are not very expensive at all and very accessible.

RAB91 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

This seems pretty simple to me. If it was made to be released on the big screen, the Oscars. If it was made where the only option is to watch it at home, the Emmy's.

---

So where do you put Roma?

it was made to be released at home, and they released it on a couple of screens only so it could become eligible for the film awards like the Oscars. That's the point Spielberg is attempting to address.

---

That's easy. Just put a threshold for the the number of screens that it has to be released on (maybe time too?). They could figure out what that number should be.

---

Why does it even need to be shown in 1 theater though? Roma was an amazing movie and had it not been seen in one theater it still would have been the best film made this year. The fact that it was shown in theaters isn't what won it awards.

The only thing that should matter is how good a film is. If something made for lifetime is the best film of the year, then it should win the Oscar! That's the bottom line. That it might also win an Emmy is irrelevant just as an Oscar film might win a variety of other awards from shows that have their own standards.

RAB91 said:

---

nai06 said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

This seems pretty simple to me. If it was made to be released on the big screen, the Oscars. If it was made where the only option is to watch it at home, the Emmy's.

---

So where do you put Roma?

it was made to be released at home, and they released it on a couple of screens only so it could become eligible for the film awards like the Oscars. That's the point Spielberg is attempting to address.

---

That's easy. Just put a threshold for the the number of screens that it has to be released on (maybe time too?). They could figure out what that number should be.

---

which they have already. Its just ridiculously low. to be considered a movie has to play at least one full week in any theater in LA County with something like one prime time showing and on he weekends before it plays anywhere else. Netflix saw that and hit those requirements with their nominated and eligible movies

---

I obviously don't follow this, but it still seems simple. If Netflix is gaming the system in the Academy's opinion, change the rules to weed them out. I love Netflix, but they make TV moves.

---

This is ridiculous. What the hell is a TV movie? Netflix has some great movies. The idea that a film is somehow inferior because inherently because Netflix makes it has no standing whatsoever.

Roma. Mudbound. Beasts of No Nation. Ballard of Buster Scruggs.

All are high quality films.