Spielberg: Movies Released by Streaming Services Don’t Deserve an Oscar

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Steven Spielberg doesn’t think that movies released by Netflix, Amazon, and other streaming services should qualify for the Academy Awards. His reasoning is that when these productions are released in cinemas, it is usually for a very short period (e.g., one week), and being in theaters doesn’t change the fact that they are technically television.

"But, in fact, once you commit to a television format, you're a TV movie," Spielberg continued. He added that films released on streaming services could "deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar." "I don't believe that films that are just given token qualifications, in a couple of theaters for less than a week, should qualify for the Academy Award nominations," he said.
 
Considering how many oscar awards are for shorts and documentaries that appear in theaters in extremely limited showings for a week or two and then they're gone... wtf does it matter? Animated short film, documentary short, documentary short subject, live action short film... that's FOUR categories right there where most of the nominees and winners wouldn't even meet the qualifications according to Spielberg.

Frankly, the whole thing is an industry insider wank fest anyway. The oscars are the equivalent of caring about the national plumbing association convention awards(frankly, I'd rather be more interested in knowing which plumbers are so amazing they win awards anyway, so I know who to hire). They aren't decided by viewers, viewers get absolutely nothing out of it, and it's not like oscar winning directors and actors are always putting together amazing movies either.
 
297.jpg
 
Considering that most Academy Award voters view the movies on a DVD-screener (yeah most of the movies you were nominated for were watched on a Television to determine their merit) , it kind of ruins his perspective. Regardless, I think that his argument is still a valid one, however, let's not lie to ourselves here Steve, the world is changing.
 
Back in the 50s and 60s, the "home of the future" speculative documentaries would state things like "instead of theaters, movies would be sent right to the television in every home". Amazing how many of those turned out to ring true. So, it's no surprise that the streaming services themselves are tired of the exhorbitantly high licensing and royalty fees so they simply spent the money to make their own series and movies, instead...
 
I call bullshit on that -- they are movies, where you watch them doesn't matter.

Seems that if a movie "requires" a theater it is getting an advantage over a better movie that can be watched anywhere.

1980s thinking.

Besides, watching movies at a theater can be a real pain in the ass if they don't ban cellphone use.

And yeah, theater popcorn/soda costs a hell of a lot more than at my house.
 
With movie theater attendance at record lows I don't see why streaming services can't get a shot at getting an Oscar. Streaming will only get bigger and offer better movies than what we currently see in theaters.
 
Considering Spielberg has done IMO next to James Cameron the most to push the envelop for movies I see no issue in him complaining; whether it’s valid or not is another story altogether.

Considering his awards I doubt he’s jealous of Netflix or any other streaming services movie winning an Oscar; just that a movie that not everyone is going to have a chance to see (poor broadband, extremely limited theatre run, no account to Netflix, no redbox/on-demand/physical release) shouldn’t be categorized in the same bracket as movies that do see a much wider theatre release, higher availability I.e on demand, redbox, a physical purchase.

Considering movies on Netflix are proprietary to that platform and hardly get released to other mediums there should be a category in the Oscars to cover streaming service films.
 
He's an idiot. A movie is a movie. It doesn't matter if it's released on PornHub or only projected in a XXX theatre.
 
EODetroit said:
I think he has a valid point.
Click to expand...

He sounds like my old profs during film school They would get freaking irate if you accidentally called shooting a scene on video, shooting because to them its taping. But now we shoot on cards or direct to disk, its not taping either right? But no they still get pissed off. lol
 
Best streaming movie award. Problem solved. Its not like they don't already have dozens of categories anyway. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::D:D
 
Actually, I think Speilberg makes a lot of sense (youtube interview time linked to when he starts talking about streaming).

In fact he says that streaming services are picking up the slack for experimental filmmaking, which theaters are shying away from.

He's arguing that TV Movies, by their categorization, does not qualify for an academy award. So it's a technical distinction, not necessarily a slam.

The fix is simple: change the categorizations.


 
Last edited:
I see both sides of it.

But the bottom line, in my opinion, is who should give a rats ass about Oscar and Emmy nominations? Self absorbed people (i.e. most of Hollywood). "Oh boy, let me pat myself on the back for this Oscar as I rake in millions!"

There are VERY few firms/shows I would actually categorize as art or worthy of such an award(s). It's now watered down and meaningless. Just an excuse for dressing up nice and after hour parties. Hell, maybe I'm just jealous.
 
What's easier name 10 Oscar movies or 20 Movies you liked?....


Does it matter in other words? "TV-movies" or streaming or cinema I don't see the difference more than average screen size they been shown on first months... If I got something I wanted from watching a motion picture it probably was good and I might consider it money well spent...
 
Who cares?

I've given up on ever attending another movie. Why should I pay ~10$ to this bunch of clowns to support them. They don't care nor will I.

Hollywood has made it choice with most of these clueless beautiful people and so have I!!!
 
Merc’s post pretty much sums it all up. Nothing to really discuss after that, lol.
 
Get with the times. Innovation will move us forward, those that hold on to the past will be brought kicking & streaming.

/Dad joke quota of the day.
 
The question is "what status does the actual theater bestow upon a work?" Much like the Institutional theory of art which asks the same question but of a gallery, this is unwinnable. Movies are movies no matter where they play, who sees them or how many people see them.
 
I kind of understand his point, but I don't think we can equate "steaming" with broadcast TV... or simply put, can't really equate "made for TV movie" with "movie available through streaming".... not always, and not in the cases that he's sort of challenging.
 
Award ceremonies don't mean a damn thing. Viewers have no say in who wins an award. Just your co-workers in the industry. If you're an asshole that nobody likes, but they have to work with you anyway because you're in demand for what you do, you're naturally going to be showing up for nothing if you even bother attending. Doesn't mean you're shit at your job, just that everyone else around you just fucking hates you, they just can't admit that openly. The ceremonies are where they get to do that, and the worst anyone will hear is how viewers feel that someone else should have won that particular award.
 
Usual_suspect said:
Considering Spielberg has done IMO next to James Cameron the most to push the envelop for movies I see no issue in him complaining; whether it’s valid or not is another story altogether.

Considering his awards I doubt he’s jealous of Netflix or any other streaming services movie winning an Oscar; just that a movie that not everyone is going to have a chance to see (poor broadband, extremely limited theatre run, no account to Netflix, no redbox/on-demand/physical release) shouldn’t be categorized in the same bracket as movies that do see a much wider theatre release, higher availability I.e on demand, redbox, a physical purchase.

Considering movies on Netflix are proprietary to that platform and hardly get released to other mediums there should be a category in the Oscars to cover streaming service films.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Netflix has 120 million subscribers worldwide right? That's equivalent to over a third of the US population and does not count the fact that basically everyone shares their account with immediate family. Now let's add in the fact that the cost of seeing these movies on Netflix is included in the sub fee and yeah, I would think Netflix movies would have a similar level of exposure as mainstream movies with theatrical releases. You are normally talking like 4000 theaters in the US playing a movie for a national release. Think about how much traffic would actually go through them to see the average movie and it doesn't seem like a stretch to think a similar viewership is possible.
 
Move/television is kinda b.s. Way I see it, intent wins.. Movie is a fucking movie regardless of the medium it was released on. YouTube, a shitty c-rate SyFy TV release, Netflix, etc.... A movie is a movie and a show is a show. Intent is the only thing that should matter.

Seems like the rantings of someone seeing the traditional distro medium fading and new, awesome material coming from people not him.

I only read the recap on front page. Either way, my comment probably still applies
 
cjcox said:
I kind of understand his point, but I don't think we can equate "steaming" with broadcast TV... or simply put, can't really equate "made for TV movie" with "movie available through streaming".... not always, and not in the cases that he's sort of challenging.
Click to expand...


Do you mean where these smaller studios are doing much more with much less?
 
How about just letting the best long-format single episode 'film' win the award? Let the cream rise to the top.

Of course, we could break this out into it's own awards show - we'd have the Tonys for Broadway, the Emmys for television, the Oscars for theatre releases, and .. THE STREAMIES! Yeah, baby, yeah! But if 'Streamies' sounds too industrial and the award needs to be known colloquially by a person's name, well, I'd nominate 'Chuck'. It's a good sound - "The nominees for the Chuck for Best Picture are ...."


P.S. But I still like Streamies. Dunno what the statue would look like, it would have to be awesome, better than that stupid astronaut MTV uses. Maybe a gold dog wearing a collar of shame.

P.P.S. Speaking of which, when MTV first started calling their spokespeople 'VJays', what was the first thing that came to your mind?
 
alxlwson said:
Do you mean where these smaller studios are doing much more with much less?
Click to expand...

Yep. The establishment, ie. Hollywood is pissed that products like AC can be made when even they couldn't do it. AC for instance was passed around and passed on by the majors.

After a 15-year path to the screen, Altered Carbon will officially launch Friday on Netflix...

Namely, studios weren't exactly scrambling to bankroll an R-rated, thematically complex sci-fi film not tied to an existing franchise. Shoehorning the novel's intricate framework into a two-hour running time posed an additional challenge.
Click to expand...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/l...on-inside-dramas-15-year-road-netflix-1080944
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top