Banning Netflix, Amazon from Festivals and Awards Is Wrong

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/03/27/banning-netflix-amazon-from-festivals-and-awards-is-wrong

by teh_klev • 8 years ago

119 114 8 years ago

forbes.com

hbnyc• 8 years ago

This is ripe for a new awards ceremony inclusive of all platforms.

acchow• 8 years ago

IMDB should host one :)

Slippery_John• 8 years ago

Potential conflict of interest since IMDB is owned by Amazon.

justinzollars• 8 years ago

rotten tomatoes should host one : )

alecco• 8 years ago

Oh god, please no. They are even worse than the Academy.

Kadin2• 8 years ago

I've been thinking about this, and I think you need to work backwards from the existing awards and what makes them "tick" in the context of the industry. Why does anyone care about the awards?

- Directors and producers care about the awards, because winning an award will get your picture seen by lots of people (which means more recognition for all involved, and money for the investors). As a result of this, directors tend to hew to the formats specified by the awards bodies.

- Producing a film that doesn't conform to the requirements (i.e. not shown in theaters) is perceived as "riskier" and has less upside potential -- therefore it's not worth investing in as heavily. Unsurprisingly, the output tends to have obviously lower production values. This reputation is self-reinforcing once established; see straight-to-video releases in the 80s and 90s.

- Viewers, inundated with material, use the awards as a selection filter in determining what to watch, and theater chains tend to run award-winning movies longer, making them more accessible.

So if someone wanted to beat the current awards system at its own game, what they would need to do is basically guarantee directors/producers that there was a strong upside potential, so they'd invest and produce high-production-value (and hopefully, high quality) movies.

If Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/HBO/whatever got together and made a sort of equivalent to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, put together a broad-based judging mechanism (like the Oscars has), and then jointly agreed to give airtime to winning films on their respective platforms, that might make the awards very relevant indeed.

So, modest proposal: the streaming platforms conduct an auction for the right-of-first-refusal to winning films before the awards are opened; basically guaranteeing a payout and perhaps some publicity package to the top films. (There'd be no requirement that the winning film accept the offer, I suppose, but it would be money on the table. Presumably lots of money.) The various streaming platforms would still get exclusivity over some limited period if they were the top bidder (since otherwise, why are they going to bid? they want platform exclusives, nothing else matters to them).

The goal would be two simultaneous, benevolent (to the viewers/audience) arms races: one, between the streaming platforms (to win the auction for winning films pre-award); and two, between filmmakers (to obtain and spend the money necessary to produce an award-winning film, with the guarantee that if it wins, it will get in front of a lot of eyeballs).

I think something like that could snowball on itself and become a Big Deal pretty rapidly, given the incredible amounts of money that are shifting into streaming right now. If you look at the money people spend on cable TV (sometimes $50-100/mo just on programming) and imagine it getting shifted to streaming services, that's going to create an industry that makes the total spend on theater tickets look like floor sweepings. The quality of the content should reflect that.

dumbfounder• 8 years ago

Goodbye Cannes and Oscars. You do this and you will make yourselves irrelevant.

sddfd3• 8 years ago

I don't think so.

Netflix, Amazon, etc. have some great entertainment, but they seem to avoid serious, emotional, social, and political topics.

Instead they keep producing tons of supernatural/superhero series.

That kind of stuff was never particularly popular at Cannes anyway.

I guess what I am saying is that even though they share the medium, they do very different things with it.

TheJoYo3• 8 years ago

you should watch the Netflix series that have serious, emotional, social, and political topics.

BookmarkSaver• 8 years ago

Instead they keep producing tons of supernatural/superhero series.

No, that's just the stuff that is most popular and visible, just like in almost every other venue of the film industry. Dig slightly deeper, just like in actual cinema screenings, and they offer plenty of lower-key content.

TaylorGood• 8 years ago

I had posted on Twitter from a comment here that "good cinema is good cinema no matter the release medium" – a hollywood writer targeted my tweet in regards to Spielberg comments.

He said: "His argument is that the very definition of “cinema” is the movie theater. Are you saying that a very good film shot and released on NBC should be allowed entry to the Oscars? That’s what the Globes and Emmys are for."

So I said: The source of production and viewing outlet is less relevant than 10 years ago. At 30,000 feet the end user would say a movie is a movie and, some don’t prefer a movie theatre.

His response: "So you’re saying that TV movies should be eligible for Oscars? And, if so, should the Emmy awards for those films be eliminated?"

My response: "No, I’m not saying any of that. I’m not in that industry. A movie is a movie to me and most the world. That’s all"

The bottom line: Strong opinions and ego are flaming internal Hollywood politics, which, are disregarding the enduser.

Raphmedia2• 8 years ago

The source of production and viewing outlet is less relevant than 10 years ago.

I couldn't agree more.

My living room tv is a 65" 4K monitor. It cost me around $999 during sales.

The perceived size of that screen at such a low distance gives the impression of looking at a bigger screen that the one at the local cinema.

We watch Netflix on it using two pairs of high quality headphones.

This results in a better viewing experience than going to the cinema. If I really felt like going there, I would simply burn some butter in a pan and play some crying children sounds in the background.

adventured2• 8 years ago

And next up, plausibly even better ways to simulate massive viewing at home via virtual reality tech getting perpetually better.

Obviously home projection tech is amazing now as well, if one wants to leave the glass behind.

gregmac• 8 years ago

By this reasoning, shouldn't the movie producers refuse to allow their movies to be seen outside the 'cinema' (movie theater)? After all, doesn't that mean it's no longer 'cinema' and actually undermining their artistic vision? Some people even have the gall to watch their masterpieces on tiny 6" phone screens with a single, crappy mono speaker!

mainliningfbs• 8 years ago

Could be a polite way to say that their content is actually no good.

philwelch2• 8 years ago

The Oscars and Emmys are just marketing exercises for the film and television industries anyway.

paulcole2• 8 years ago

I'm not sure if you're saying this is a good or bad thing?

I really love watching and discussing both of those ceremonies. Lots of neat clothes, some funny jokes, celebrities, I like, etc.

Even if they are "just marketing exercises for the film and television industries anyway" who cares? Lots of people are like me and enjoy them.

mixmastamyk• 8 years ago

Yes, the obsession with industry awards is significant, while almost totally unimportant to the end user.

Tactic• 8 years ago

I say get rid of the Oscars and the Emmy's. They are both tied to release mediums which have NOTHING to do with the artistry of what is produced. Perhaps it is time for something new?

Kadin2• 8 years ago

An impressive shot... at their own foot.

The only thing Cannes is going to hurt in the long run is its own relevance within global popular culture. If they want to restrict themselves to movies that have been shown in French theaters as defined and regulated by the French government etc. etc., I suppose it's their prerogative to do so.

But they are sticking their heads in the sand if they don't realize that audiences are less interested in that particular subset of media than ever. (I don't think movie theaters will ever go away, at least not soon, but using them as part of the definition for "what is a movie" is stupid.)

I hope that Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Hulu, and others will continue to spend money on good cinema and continue to deliver it audiences in the way that audiences want to watch it. If they play the long game, they're going to win. Let the industry crusties pat each other on the back (this is politer than the metaphor I was originally going to use) at their awards -- audiences have an appetite for good storytelling and money to spend on it.

pradn3• 8 years ago

Cannes has little to do with popular culture. It's an elite event, open to industry insiders and artists. A regular person can't just buy a ticket to go to Cannes anyway.

The situation is roughly analogous to the US Academy requiring movies to play in the US for some time. (There are more restrictions, but it's in a similar spirit.)

rurban• 8 years ago

Actually they can. Just take part in what's called the Int. Cinephile Society with a lot of older French folks showing up at the screenings there. Many of them don't know how to queue up, constantly jumping the line, so they are not very much liked there. Typical waiting period is one hour in the line.

wrsh07• 8 years ago

It's kind of expected, right? Here's an industry that is existentially threatened. It's natural for them to lash out at the companies that are thriving

androck1• 8 years ago

The Post's article has more details and a link to the original source (which is behind a paywall): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/2...

Sounds like the core of the issue involves "French cultural exception" which "mandates a 36-month delay between a movie’s theatrical release and streaming date."

It's not clear to me if Cannes cares about the 36-month period (I can't imagine...) as much as theatrical release. If the latter, films like Manchester by the Sea which were released in the theaters would still compete at Cannes.

Seems absurd, particularly that this is enshrined in law, but that's just me.

adventured2• 8 years ago

Given the disaster ratings at the latest Oscars, Netflix and Amazon might just as well go ahead and start their own new awards shows and lock out old Hollywood. It's obvious who has the power now, old Hollywood is a little dog barking at a couple of tigers.

"Oscars Drop to All-Time Low 26.5 Million Viewers"

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-oscar...

philwelch2• 8 years ago

26.5 million viewers is still a lot for something that is neither a sporting event nor a Presidential address, inauguration, or debate. It’s enough that other networks will schedule around it rather than going head to head.

crysin2• 8 years ago

Unless you're AMC.

twblalock• 8 years ago

This is a prime example of an industry responding the wrong way to being disrupted.

chomp4• 8 years ago

I don't understand where this cheerleading for these multi-billion dollar companies started.

First off, these companies aren't banned at all. They are free to show them.

They can't compete unless they show their movie in a French cinema, which they refuse to.

The only way to legally watch these movies like Okja is to subscribe to these companies. If Cannes gives out an award, you can't go see it in an independent cinema, you can't buy it on disc, you must subscribe to Netflix or Amazon. I completely side with Cannes on this fact. You can't celebrate film by promoting the distributor (and in this case, their subscription model).

Netflix and Amazon are going to continue their quest to destroy cinemas, and in this case, French business. If Netflix and Amazon want to start their own awards, then they can go ahead and do it. I'll make sure to stay away from it.

doorbumper• 8 years ago

You act as though seeing it in an independent cinema is an advantage? Isn't a month of Netflix's subscription cheaper than going to the cinema? That's the real problem. Trying to charge that much for a single viewing of a single movie. Consumers will cheer for whoever is not trying to screw them over at any given time. Cinemas have taken advantage of consumers for decades, and continue to try to do so by banning content from their festivals.

chomp4• 8 years ago

It is an advantage because it's independent of the producer. They don't have a lockdown on the content.

You can only watch a Netflix movie, on Netflix. You can't watch it on Amazon, nor Google Play.

Promoting independent access to this media is a good thing.

amarkov• 8 years ago

It was my understanding that Netflix wanted to show their movies in French cinemas, but French regulations would prevent them from doing that while also streaming the movies for subscribers.

guelo2• 8 years ago

That's right, France actually has a law that after a movie is shown in a theatre it can't be streamed for 36 months.

leggomylibro2• 8 years ago

Netflix and Amazon are going to continue their quest to destroy cinemas, and in this case, French business.

If true, that quote from the comment you're responding to is probably a good representation of the attitude that France approaches that regulation with.

Hearing an argument like that uttered unironically can be baffling, but it is how the thought process can go in France. Those cinemas, they might well argue, are French businesses which inherently deserve to exist - and damn the consequences.

chomp4• 8 years ago

Yes. The CNC wanted Netflix to show their movie in more than a measly 6 cinemas since it was showing at Cannes, and the windowing regulations require 3 years before a movie can go from cinema to streaming. This is mostly a protectionist cinema regulation, though there are talks to reduce it going on right now.

I'm not at all a fan of regulatory capture, but I do understand that you can't pay lip service to the spirit of Cannes - celebrate film and cinema, don't promote your streaming services.

mc32• 8 years ago

I think the problem is explained by this[1] post in the previous discussion.

Essentially, you have to wait some time [36 mos.] before you can contractually stream after initial theatrical showing, which of course, is contrary to Netflix's whole money making model.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16678392

goostavos• 8 years ago

Netflix and Amazon are going to continue their quest to destroy cinemas

A noble quest! Cinemas are just about the worst possible way to consume a movie (in my humble opinion!).

telchar2• 8 years ago

Worse than having it forced on you from fifty small poorly calibrated TV's in the seat-backs of fellow airplane passengers who are too lazy, ignorant or oblivious to turn them off while you're trying to sleep on the first of two red-eye flights before your layover in O'Hare International Airport before work the next day?

dorfsmay6• 8 years ago

Cinemas will die anyway. I'm personally shocked they still exist. I rent movies from google and Amazon an watch series on Netflix. Used to rent DVDs before that.

Cinema made sense in the early 20th century, but not today.

shanghaiaway2• 8 years ago

Cinemas will be fine. I don't want to go to your house to watch movies.

pradn3• 8 years ago

Cinemas are great for a wide range of people.

For mainstream/action-blockbuster viewers, a huge screen with a hard-hitting sound system makes a huge difference. Some people like the reclining seats and food service (though that's not for me.)

For indie/foreign film lovers, cinemas are some of the only places where you can even see many films. Some never come out on streaming sites.

There's also the simple fact that nearly all film-makers intend their movies to be watched on the big screen. Any deviance from that means you're not getting the correct experience. Watching Lawrence of Arabia on your little iPhone, streaming from freemoviez23.net is not even close to the original 70mm glory of that movie. Hell, even 35mm movies look so much better when projected from film - that wonderful fuzziness. It's something like how old NES games were meant to look good on CRT TVs.

bamboozled2• 8 years ago

They’re good good for people with social lives.

pwinnski• 8 years ago

They can't compete unless they show their movie in a French cinema, which they refuse to.

Unless they show their movie in at least six French cinemas, preferably more, and also not make it available for streaming for at least three years after that.

ap3• 8 years ago

If Cannes gives out an award, you can't go see it in an independent cinema, you can't buy it on disc, you must subscribe to Netflix or Amazon.

Why must you be able to see the movie in an independent theatre?

Instead of paying the $10 ticket isn’t it the same to pay the $10 monthly subscription?

otaviokz• 8 years ago

They should just create their own awards, you know, with black jack and hookers. Seriously though, anything that curves to Hollywood's caprices isn't that great anyway.

bdreadz• 8 years ago

Just make good content. Make a new award ceremony. Invite everyone.

wwweston• 8 years ago

I'm going to push back on the case that this kind of exclusion would somehow make these awards / festivals irrelevant. That's unlikely. The power of the recognition they extend has much less to do with how broadly inclusive they are; it has much more to do with whether whatever they put the spotlight on is something that resonates with general audiences, with enthusiasts, and with others who work in the medium. As long as Cannes and the Oscars are functioning well as one kind of curator, they'll probably remain relevant.

Now, if those left out were to start some sort of new award or festival, and it were to become as reliable a curator of attention as the currently prestigious festivals and awards. Or if it became more so. You'd need the participation of services that have a broad reach, who could draw attention to it, if only there were a few of those left out in the cold for pushing their new model who might want to do such a thing...

AJ007• 8 years ago

One of the differences of being in my 30s, rather than 20s, is discovering things I thought were very relevant and influential are sometimes totally unknown.

In the short term, Cannes and the Oscars may be very relevant. Yet, if something were to happen where they lost relevance for a younger generation, in another decade or two not only the relevance will have vanished but so to would much of the popular awareness they even existed.

bubblethink• 8 years ago

Banning users from enjoying art because they use vpns or don't care for DRM is also wrong. It's hard to care about what feuds traditional studios and these streaming companies get into. They deserve each other.

PeanutNore• 8 years ago

I've read elsewhere that film festivals like Cannes also perform a vital business function for independent filmmakers whereby distributors attend to find movies they want to buy the rights to distribute to more theaters in various countries, and filmmakers bring their movies there seeking this to try and get their film onto more screens.

For Netflix and Amazon exclusives, this part of the film festival is completely irrelevant, and I would imagine that the people who use film festivals to shop for independent films to distribute would rather not waste their time,

butterfi• 8 years ago

As an avid movie watcher, this means nothing to me. Gatekeep your self-indulgent, self-congratulatory, award shows. Pontificate all you want about what "film" is or isn't. I'm not going to movie theaters on a regular basis because they are noisy, expensive, and often not worth the price a premium ticket. The genie is out of the bottle.

WheelsAtLarge• 8 years ago

Seems to me that it's only a matter of time before these festivals open the way to streaming services. They are dominating the creation of episodic content simply because of the money they are spending. Festivals can't ignore all that content. Also, streaming services can just start there own and stream it which givis them more content.

Banning Netflix, Amazon from Festivals and Awards Is Wrong

Related Stories