There are plenty of movies I would 100% prefer to view at a good theater. Every Nolan release. Things lik Mission Impossible.

But Green Book? lol no. Even A Star is Born felt fine at home.

There have been times when watching a film in a theater has been harmed because of the people there. My first viewing of Gravity was ruined by some kid that wouldn't shut up next to me. I only get one chance to experience it for the first time, and I don't control who else sees it with me at a theater but I do t home. Its usually just me and the wife.

Good. Roma sucked hard.

the other side of this argument is whether Netflix should really be all that concerned about winning awards.

from what i've read, the coen brothers, cuaron and now scorsese have all praised Netflix for not only stepping up to fund their projects, but also for not getting in the way and letting them make their films.

at some point, i wonder if that reputation isn't going to just as helpful in attracting top notch filmmakers and acting talent than award contention would be.

I think we have gotten past of the point of calling them "TV movies". They're movies, period.

Sort of how in the early days, series released to streaming were called "web series", but they're just TV series now.

Semi-related point -- I wish they were releasing the final season of GoT in theaters. I'd pay full price for each of the 6 episodes.

The Netflix part of this discussion may all be moot in several years. Netflix is in $10B debt, and Disney hasn't even gotten their streaming up and running yet. Netflix may be in trouble when it's time to pay up.

However, if Disney wants to include streaming in the Oscars, I doubt a guy like Spielberg could stop it. I assume the mouse will get what it wants.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Semi-related point -- I wish they were releasing the final season of GoT in theaters. I'd pay full price for each of the 6 episodes.

---

It would be difficult to watch with all the people attempting to film their reaction videos.

aTmAg said:

---

The Netflix part of this discussion may all be moot in several years. Netflix is in $10B debt, and Disney hasn't even gotten their streaming up and running yet. Netflix may be in trouble when it's time to pay up.

However, if Disney wants to include streaming in the Oscars, I doubt a guy like Spielberg could stop it. I assume the mouse will get what it wants.

---

I dont know their financial situation or really what kind of assets they have, but Netflix has $15B in annual revenue. Acting like that debt would be some kind of crippling factor is like saying a dude who makes $150k is in trouble because he owes $100k on a house...

also, according to yahoo, Disney has $20bln in debt.

Isn't the problem with the Oscars is that they are too accessible? In mainstream distribution there has to be somewhat of a broad commercial appeal to justify the release. How much appeal depends on a lot of factors but if people aren't willing to spend money to see a specific movie, is anyone going to care that Such and Such wins a best actress award? I think the problem isn't streaming, but that it's too easy to get the movies eligible. Great, it played on a single screen in LA to a bunch of industry people. They should change the rules to state that it has to have been shown in a theater for at least 2 weekends in the top 10 metropolitan areas in the United States. That's not a high standard and you only have to show in New York, California, Chicago, Texas, DC, Miami, Philly, Atlanta, and Boston. The problem with streaming is that they can make a movie with the express intent of having it only appeal to a very small subset of people.

jackie childs said:

---

the other side of this argument is whether Netflix should really be all that concerned about winning awards.

from what i've read, the coen brothers, cuaron and now scorsese have all praised Netflix for not only stepping up to fund their projects, but also for not getting in the way and letting them make their films.

at some point, i wonder if that reputation isn't going to just as helpful in attracting top notch filmmakers and acting talent than award contention would be.

---

I can tell you that had Disney originally made my wife's movie like they intended I think it would have been substantially different that what was released via Netflix

in what way? Do you think Disney would have meddled more and Netflix was more open?

Did any of you get the opportunity to watch those two episodes of GOT on IMAX?

It was an amazing experience.

Flashdiaz said:

---

in what way? Do you think Disney would have meddled more and Netflix was more open?

---

I think so. Typically authors have very little say in the final product once you release the rights. She was pretty involved in the project and they asked for her input on a lot of things. I don't know that there would have been such a focus on the drag queens and I don't think they would have allowed any swearing.

nai06 said:

---

Flashdiaz said:

---

in what way? Do you think Disney would have meddled more and Netflix was more open?

---

I think so. Typically authors have very little say in the final product once you release the rights. She was pretty involved in the project and they asked for her input on a lot of things. I don't know that there would have been such a focus on the drag queens and I don't think they would have allowed any swearing.

---

Also thats not to say that Disney couldnt have made a great movie. It just would have been different. The people she worked with while the project was at Disney were great. But look Disney has an image that they have spent a lot of time to craft and present. So it would make sense that any film the make would need to fit into the Disney brand.

birdman said:

---

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.

---

Thats exactly what they do. They show it for a week and then it goes to streaming. My wife's movie played for a week in LA, NYC, Dallas, and Houston.

The Debt said:

---

Did any of you get the opportunity to watch those two episodes of GOT on IMAX?

It was an amazing experience.

---

Yep. That was pretty sick.

Would be awesome to do that with entirely new episodes.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Did any of you get the opportunity to watch those two episodes of GOT on IMAX?

It was an amazing experience.

---

Yep. That was pretty sick.

Would be awesome to do that with entirely new episodes.

---

I would pay a premium to watch the final season in theaters

schmendeler said:

---

also, according to yahoo, Disney has $20bln in debt.

---

Is this just Disney studio or all of Walt Disney Company? That number seems low to me.

CJS4715 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

also, according to yahoo, Disney has $20bln in debt.

---

Is this just Disney studio or all of Walt Disney Company? That number seems low to me.

---

I just looked up the Disney corporation

nai06 said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Did any of you get the opportunity to watch those two episodes of GOT on IMAX?

It was an amazing experience.

---

Yep. That was pretty sick.

Would be awesome to do that with entirely new episodes.

---

I would pay a premium to watch the final season in theaters

---

HBO subscription $15/month for 2 months. (What six-eight episodes?)

I think we would gladly pay $15 per episode in imax

JJxvi said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

The Netflix part of this discussion may all be moot in several years. Netflix is in $10B debt, and Disney hasn't even gotten their streaming up and running yet. Netflix may be in trouble when it's time to pay up.

However, if Disney wants to include streaming in the Oscars, I doubt a guy like Spielberg could stop it. I assume the mouse will get what it wants.

---

I dont know their financial situation or really what kind of assets they have, but Netflix has $15B in annual revenue. Acting like that debt would be some kind of crippling factor is like saying a dude who makes $150k is in trouble because he owes $100k on a house...

---

Except that they keep adding new debt every year (they added $2B last year). So it's not that they owe $100k on a house, it's that they keep having to buy new houses over and over without fully paying off the old ones. And furthermore, that is an environment before Disney is streaming. They are not only losing all of Disney's content, they are going to have to compete with Disney. I have read an article or two arguing that investors should stay the hell away from Netflix for this reason.

They've come a long way from mailing out DVDs.

double aught said:

---

They've come a long way from mailing out DVDs.

---

credit to Netflix, they've been ahead of the curve for a while now.

they mailed DVD's to capitalize on convenience and no late fees.

they pivoted into the streaming service and locked up early content.

they anticipated competition and as their content deals started expiring, the pivoted into original content.

i think it's pretty telling that we're not seeing them branch out into a chain of Netflix Theaters

Quote:

---

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.

---

Dunkirk is an example of a movie that I must see in a theater. The sound was incredible. On a subsequent viewing during the middle of the day/week, I had to sneak out to go relieve my bladder. The restroom was adjacent to the theater I was watching the movie in. I could hear the sound clearly enough through the walls to know that the scene I was missing was when Tom Hardy came in behind the Heinkel bomber, and the bomber's gunners noticed him and opened up their MG 17's on him ... BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM

Spielberg comes across as a sanctimonious ***** these days. While I understand that he is insanely wealthy as the result of making a bunch of really awesome movies, but who is he to determine what should be honored at the silly awards show? I'd guess that the academy should be the one to make the decision as to what should be up for any awards.

This just comes across as a bit petulant by Spielberg, play by this very specific set of rules to get an academy award, or else.

The film and tv industry are very different now than they were 10-20 years ago. Streaming is the norm now, for film and tv. I think streaming will be largely responsible for a lot of films being developed going forward that would never see the light of day in the traditional film world.

Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu are major players in entertainment now. Each with their own proprietary films and tv shows.

Their very existence will give more people a chance to create film and tv, it's a win for everyone, consumers, producers, directors, you name it. Why does something have to fit in a specific box to make him happy? I haven't seen Roma, it just doesn't look to do much for me. Would I care if it or anything else won an academy award? Nope, but the film should deserve the opportunity for every award it could based solely on the merit of itself as a film, not whether or not it was in theaters for months, then DVD, then Netflix.

Watch the South Park from like 2002 ripping on musicians' being butthurt about Napster / music downloads

In 20 years, this "resistance" to where technology has taken movies/tv will look just as ridiculous

Bruce Almighty said:

---

Counterpoint said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

I think it's all about money. he wants movies to have to go to theaters because the margins are higher there than home video release.

---

You don't think he's beyond caring about money anymore? He's rolling in it.

---

I agree. He's a 70 year old billionaire who's making more movies like Lincoln than Indiana Jones nowadays.

---

The abomination that was the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was only 4 years before LIncoln. Ready Player 1 was last year. The next Indiana Jones has been announced for 2021...

He's not done making popcorn flicks for cash by any means.

aTmAg said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

The Netflix part of this discussion may all be moot in several years. Netflix is in $10B debt, and Disney hasn't even gotten their streaming up and running yet. Netflix may be in trouble when it's time to pay up.

However, if Disney wants to include streaming in the Oscars, I doubt a guy like Spielberg could stop it. I assume the mouse will get what it wants.

---

I dont know their financial situation or really what kind of assets they have, but Netflix has $15B in annual revenue. Acting like that debt would be some kind of crippling factor is like saying a dude who makes $150k is in trouble because he owes $100k on a house...

---

Except that they keep adding new debt every year (they added $2B last year). So it's not that they owe $100k on a house, it's that they keep having to buy new houses over and over without fully paying off the old ones. And furthermore, that is an environment before Disney is streaming. They are not only losing all of Disney's content, they are going to have to compete with Disney. I have read an article or two arguing that investors should stay the hell away from Netflix for this reason.

---

Disney is very late to the game with their streaming platform. They'll have a compelling catalog of programming, but they're going to end up spending billions each year on production on top of the billions they spend on theatrical releases now if they want to present a value proposition to subscribers.

Streaming services are a bubble. Everyone is coming out with them and they apparently need to be $8-10/month in the beginning to make financial sense. At some point there will be a breaking point and people are either going to start pirating content at a significant rate, binging and then dumping the subscription or buying copies of shows and movies they like, which will affect the revenue stream. At some point people will do the math and figure out that $10 here and there for netflix, hulu, espn+, disney+, DCUniverse,... etc will add up to way too much money to be worth it. Being entrenched as the leader will help Netflix weather that, building their catalog even though it comes at the cost of accruing debt serves that purpose. They'll dip with everyone else, but they won't go away.

Either Disney is late to the game by their own design or its just a function of it not making sense for them to enter until now. I really doubt that they were caught with their pants down; their place within the market allows them to be a little more patient. They have a healthy profit margin that is worth protecting.

As for Netflix, as long as they are investing properly in future content, then I expect their usage of debt is not a bad sign. They are a business still in the active growth stage; of course there is going to be an increase in debt load.

Secondary question, does Disney's official entry into streaming put the nail in the coffin for hard copy bluray / dvds. A big piece of this market has to be Disney / kid films. I wonder how much of their catalog will be held back from their streaming platform. I'm guessing they still move quite a few copies of Snow White, Cinderella, etc. when they pull things out of the vault.

Somebody earlier posted about the power of character development and story in episodic "tv" vs "movies" and a couple of Spielberg's own projects are good case in point at the relative prestige of the Emmys and Oscars.

While Saving Private Ryan won 5 Oscars and the first 30 minutes of the landing on Omaha Beach are stunning on the big screen, the nature of the movie format brings the film to an end that to me is a bit contrived or a "Hollywood" ending.

Band of Brothers, which he produced and won the Emmy for best mini-series, is in my opinion a much stronger artistic work and much more complex and developed. But because it was not on the big screen, it had to settle for the less prestigious award. The same holds true for The Pacific, which was also Spielberg produced and won for best Miniseries*.


As to figuring out what to do with Netflix, et al. -

The time limits inherent in the movie format - whether on the big screen or small screen - are perhaps the most defining characteristic that separates movies from miniseries or other formats. The time that an audience to sit to watch a screen in one sitting dictates many of the elements like plot and structure that differentiate movies from other types of works.

So if the theatrical presentation requirement is completely done away with, the argument could be made that tv movies that qualify for the Emmy in the movie category - which is based on length of the work - could easily qualify for Oscars.

*as an aside, I would love to see have gotten the chance to see BoB and the Pacific on the big screen.