-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Surprise, surprise. The “battle” between Steven Spielberg and Netflix was utter bullshit.
- Thread starter Scullibundo
- Start date
OP
OP
But he's not out of touch or the Luddite posters here we're trying to paint him as. He's actually one of the most tech-savvy people in the industry and way ahead of the curve when it comes to production and distribution knowledge.
I agree, and yet he still has this stodgy, irrational view about the arbitrary rules that dictate whether a film deserves to be formally lauded or not. Just because he's up to date and "with it" in certain technical areas doesn't mean we should accept as forward-thinking and progressive all of his opinions on other aspects of the industry.
My boomer parents can work their iPhones just fine, but they still don't like the gays.
I wouldn't go that far but Boom Blox was awesome and a new one would be rad.
I want people to turn their phones off and refrain from talking when the movie starts. I want the cost of a ticket to be around $5 again. I want concessions that are worth purchasing. I want theater owners to take complaints like these seriously and find worthwhile solutions that compel me to think they value my business.
OP
OP
For people to engage with the actual facts of the story and not the misrepresented one we had on the forum before. Or: Reassess their previous inclination to respond to clickbait without the true context.
Maybe you shouldn't set the tone of the thread by being strangely hostile next time.
This thread is kinda weird. I totally get what Scullibundo is going for here, in that people in this forum are ready to pounce when there is someone to pounce on but when there's a correction to their previously misinformed ideas they shy away because simply put it isn't as fun.
Like I'm saying, this forum is toxic with how much it loves to hate sometimes.
I'm glad it's clarified that Spielberg isn't some weird maniac who wants Netflix out of business, especially when his production company is explicitly invested in its success. This was always weird to me and Indiewire should definitely own up to this bullshit.
Like I'm saying, this forum is toxic with how much it loves to hate sometimes.
I'm glad it's clarified that Spielberg isn't some weird maniac who wants Netflix out of business, especially when his production company is explicitly invested in its success. This was always weird to me and Indiewire should definitely own up to this bullshit.
OP
OP
Yeah you get it. People are very quick to jump down somebody's throat at the whiff of something gossip-worthy. Yet when said gossip is proven bullshit those same people who will gladly drag them through mud are nowhere to be seen.
OP
OP
What does Avatar have to do with this thread and why would I be nervous about its record?
He was just joking around.
Bit like I said-why would Spielberg have a problem with streaming if he's making movies for Apple?
Yeah, I understand the subject of the thread refuting the hyperbole of the Spielberg reports while seemingly confirming the basis of them, but this thread is sort of funny. There's a tangible hostile tone to it.
"How do you like that haters? Where you at haters?"
Haters come out in force...
"Why are you here haters? Leave!"
If you don't want to summon beetlejuice, don't say his name three times.
It's more out culture at large that has been amplified by twitter. We like to build people up and we like to tear them down.
I remain moderately begrudging against the use of "clickbait" to refer to sensationalized journalism rather than headlines or ledes that don't provide sufficent context for a story
Gotta agree with this. OP came out swinging before anyone even replied, a bit weird.
My take was I wonder when all the Netflix haters who agreed with the originally published article are gonna show up. Fortunately, this non-news gives everyone enough room to wriggle around. If they ban movies released on streaming platforms from winning Oscars, it is petty flexing by an old institution. If Spielberg doesn't support that, good for him. If he does, fuck him. As before.
OP
OP
Just a joke, my dude.
Anyway, doesn't he still want the academy to not recognize movies that don't get a theatrical release? Wasn't that the whole problem people had in the original thread? What's changed?
Just because he's trying to work with the theaters to extend the ability for these movies to be in theaters, that still goes against the argument that he's in favor of that requirement. Or am I misreading the quoted part above?
The whole context is just different. This isn't Spielberg going on the warpath against Netflix and acting as a driving force to change the Academy's eligibility rules. Were it to come up, he'd be down to alter things a bit to encourage theatrical releases, but 1) his problem isn't with streaming services, 2) again, he isn't actively trying to change eligibility rules, and 3) to the extent he's been active, it's actually been to encourage theatres to negotiate better terms with companies like Netflix.
It paints a pretty different overall picture - one that I don't think would have animated nearly the same kind of discussion as the original.
Yeah, the big 3 (AMC, Regal, Cinemark) chains are really pretty shit when it comes to this, and they control so many screens around the country that it's almost flat out impossible to get anything that comes close to a wide release without getting the 3 of them on board with it. And we saw how absolutely petty they can be when they banned Roma from their best picture marathons, even though Black Panther was already on Streaming by the time the marathons actually occurred. Taking them on to get them to loosen their stance on the theatrical eligibility window would actually be a great thing.
Theres the hypothetical and what he actually did.
You are hinging your opinion on the hypothetical situation instead of the actual situation.
Dont you find that strange?
In the event a Netflix vote showed up he would "probably" vote ban.
He is actively trying to get Netflix movies in theaters.
But you are still against him because of the hypothetical situation that might never occur?
I don't even think it sounds like that now that we have more context.
It sounds like he has no issue with how streaming has evolved and even feels like there is streaming content out there now that should be given the full theatrical treatment that such content deserves.
I agree with him to be honest. The theater is the ultimate movie experience unless you get a shit audience or something.
Streaming and such has convenience on its side, but everything else is just objectively better.
It reads like he just wants to make sure that worthy content gets treated with that full experience as well, regardless of what type of platform/service it was created for.
And I say this as someone who would much rather stay at home and watch the blu-ray with my nice 4K tv and 5.1 system. Heh.
It says right there that if it was offered by the academy that he'd vote for changes to ensure the survival of the "motion picture theatrical art form" (it isn't an art-form but okay). Such action would result in Netflix created content from no longer being considered. Because of the control that a few large companies have this would force the smaller movies out of consideration due to theatre chains being unwilling to allocate screens for them.
He even mentions that last point when he claimed he phoned up to get AMC and Regal to play Roma and they refused. But if he voted for a policy change from the academy then movies like Roma would never have been nominated in the first place.
What matters, and what should be voted on, is the movie itself. Not some absurd notion about the viewing experience.
He even mentions that last point when he claimed he phoned up to get AMC and Regal to play Roma and they refused. But if he voted for a policy change from the academy then movies like Roma would never have been nominated in the first place.
What matters, and what should be voted on, is the movie itself. Not some absurd notion about the viewing experience.
OP
OP
Is he making movies for Apple or is he producing TV content for Apple? Those are two different things. His biggest beef from the start has not been with Netflix as a service, but with Netflix producing films which deserve to be in cinemas but because of the nature of the business, don't get into cinemas. That IS a tragedy, although one that most people are willing to live with given the convenience and trade off.
I would be very surprised if Spielberg or Nolan, the most vocal directors about this issue, ever direct a film that is streaming only without some sort of clause that ensures it gets a good theatrical run.
OP
OP
[
Fair enough. You won't get any argument from me if you try to say this place is full of hot-taking nutcases!
The OP literally says he stands by his position that netflix movies aren't real movies, and that he wants to see the Academy Awards more effectively gatekeeped.
Which is what he was being criticised for in the first place.
Doesn't seem like he's at all changed his mind, he's just doing damage control.
Which is what he was being criticised for in the first place.
Doesn't seem like he's at all changed his mind, he's just doing damage control.
Actually most of that thread was about some salty Spielberg vs Roma. And this categorically states he wanted Roma in theatres.
It's nice that he was trying to get cinemas to show Roma. It's nice that he has no ill-will towards Netflix. There's still the issue of his thinking that theatrical releases are required for Oscar consideration, it's stated that he would "probably" vote that way if it came to it. The "probably" gives that bit of wiggle room to say 'well he might not, it's hypothetical'...but it's more like the person making the statement choosing their language carefully to be diplomatic.
I love going to the cinema, go pretty much every week. The "experience" of the cinema has nothing to do with the quality of film being played, which is what the Oscars are all about. Method of viewing shouldn't be a barrier to entry for a movie. Hell, I'd wager that most of the people voting for these films first see them when viewing the screeners they get sent...certainly the less mainstream entries.
I haven't seen Roma, but many seem to think it was worthy of consideration for an award. Restricting only theatrical releases for consideration says that a movie like The Bye Bye Man is closer to consideration than something like Roma. That's not celebrating the best of film making, that's setting up an arbitrary distinction that makes no damn sense at all. Nothing wrong with wanting more movies to be screened in cinemas...that's ALL it should be about though.
I love going to the cinema, go pretty much every week. The "experience" of the cinema has nothing to do with the quality of film being played, which is what the Oscars are all about. Method of viewing shouldn't be a barrier to entry for a movie. Hell, I'd wager that most of the people voting for these films first see them when viewing the screeners they get sent...certainly the less mainstream entries.
I haven't seen Roma, but many seem to think it was worthy of consideration for an award. Restricting only theatrical releases for consideration says that a movie like The Bye Bye Man is closer to consideration than something like Roma. That's not celebrating the best of film making, that's setting up an arbitrary distinction that makes no damn sense at all. Nothing wrong with wanting more movies to be screened in cinemas...that's ALL it should be about though.
Because he wants it to meet his arbitrary criteria to be a "real movie", but does not want many other movies released on Netflix to be considered real movies.
The Spielberg complaints about Netflix made sense to me once I saw he was partnered with apples new Netflix competitor.
He helped usher in the era of "magic" in cinema. It's not surprising he supports the medium.