ASIB Turned Down The Opportunity To Premiere At Cannes

[Pacify Him 9,073]

Cannes is basically European Oscars but it's also a festival at the same time. They're probably aiming for the Oscars instead so she'd get an EGOT award  

[Wixson 4,900]

1 hour ago, Anveeroy said:

MISSED OPPORTUNITY! 

Carol still got a ton of nominations at Oscars. 

And won none, missed out on Best Picture/Director nominations despite being the highest acclaimed film of the year and on top of all of that, had to fraud its way up to that 6th nom.  In case you didn't notice, I'm still not over the snubs , but they do have a point - despite being the most respected film festival in the world, it's no secret Cannes isn't the best option to kick off a heavy awards campaign, especially if the film is supposed to be a serious Oscar contender. Telluride, Toronto and Venice are where it's at.

[Neight Shayde 7,925]

well last year 'Three Billboards' and 'The Shape of Water' were both in competition at Venice Film Festival. "Call Me By Your Name" premiered at Sundance but it still had a ton of premieres during the fall festivals as well. I hope ASIB gets recognized as well if it is a really good film

[grenziel 538]

1 hour ago, ryanripley said:

true but it also had some editing issues that people from the most recent screenings said have now been fixed, like the pacing and stuff so it still works out

Receipt?

[Bradley 54,906]

It's really strange how award platforms like the Oscars still give more advantage to films released later in the year than those which were released mid-year. Like you're supposed to review all films submitted for your consideration, you're not supposed to take into account what films were released closer to the award season to make it fair. The Grammys acknowledged this and they endeavour to give fair advantage to all music released throughout the year which I respect.

[Quartz 11,923]

42 minutes ago, Bradley said:

It's really strange how award platforms like the Oscars still give more advantage to films released later in the year than those which were released mid-year. Like you're supposed to review all films submitted for your consideration, you're not supposed to take into account what films were released closer to the award season to make it fair. The Grammys acknowledged this and they endeavour to give fair advantage to all music released throughout the year which I respect.

I don't think the Grammys is a perfect example of 'fair' with all the snubbs and controversial choices these past years.

[Bradley 54,906]

19 minutes ago, hellothing said:

I don't think the Grammys is a perfect example of 'fair' with all the snubbs and controversial choices these past years.

I think they mentioned somewhere that they're trying to make their system fairer by giving equal weight to all music released throughout the year, regardless of when they were being released. This is advantageous to music released later in the year because they usually have insufficient amount of time to 'get big' before the Grammys.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Anveeroy said:

MISSED OPPORTUNITY! 

Carol still got a ton of nominations at Oscars. 

but did it win? 

not today satan smith 

[Mr S 7,616]

I trust WB and and Cooper.

It's great that LG gets to benefit from a great team. We won't have to worry about any missteps. No bad lead single choice, no delayed music videos, etc. It feels like we're gonna be able to sit back and cheer for LG without any worry. I cannot wait.

[freebit 6,068]

12 hours ago, Bradley said:

It's really strange how award platforms like the Oscars still give more advantage to films released later in the year than those which were released mid-year. Like you're supposed to review all films submitted for your consideration, you're not supposed to take into account what films were released closer to the award season to make it fair. The Grammys acknowledged this and they endeavour to give fair advantage to all music released throughout the year which I respect.

I feel like the award strategy for the big categories is different for the Grammys because an album can spawn many singles that can be put into rotation on radio & streaming playlists for months on end, thus giving voters a reminder that they have an album out. The prestige movies gunning for Oscars don't have this advantage, it's like there's lead up promo, then opening weekend, and that's it (unless it's a blockbuster, or sometimes a "genre" movie like horror).

[DrewPa 3,650]

I knew it. When I heard the movie was announced for May I thought "They are negotiating with Cannes", and then, when the release date was again postponed to fall, I thought "Ok, Cannes is not going to happen, maybe that means Oscar potential". 

[Bebe 16,562]

16 hours ago, Bradley said:

It's really strange how award platforms like the Oscars still give more advantage to films released later in the year than those which were released mid-year. Like you're supposed to review all films submitted for your consideration, you're not supposed to take into account what films were released closer to the award season to make it fair. The Grammys acknowledged this and they endeavour to give fair advantage to all music released throughout the year which I respect.

It's not a conscious decision usually, the thing with music is that it's easily replay-able and easy to remember. I can think of an album that I love, and that I haven't heard in months or even years, and know how each song sounds.

With Films, there's a difference between seeing it in the movies and seeing it at home, so even if you are replaying a movie to make it seem fair - you're not having the cinema experience. There are also voters that, frankly, wouldn't be replaying every movie up for consideration. Also with film, you lose some nuance on memory. You might remember the basic plot and some memorable scenes - but you don't remember every camera movement, every choice made for sound design, every transition and creative edit, every minute detail of costuming and so on. 

It's not so much that the Oscars committee are consciously putting more weight on the films released closer to the award ceremony - it's just that those films are more fresh in everybody's mind. There are the posters and billboards everywhere, there are the interviews upon interviews with the cast and crew, there are positive reviews rolling in, there is everything that is involved with a marketing campaign for a movie. Those films are what are fresh on everyone in the industry's minds, the industry is abuzz with how acclaimed and great those movies are, everyone has kinda forgotten about the film released in May (unlike with music where the artist could still be releasing singles and/or touring the album).

I think there is always going to be that slight subconscious bias when it comes to the Oscars. It's unavoidable. You're always going to prefer the film you're fresh with, you're going to be influenced in some way by the promotion and chatter around the movies that have just come out (especially when chatter for films released earlier in the year have obviously stopped). 

[Spock 20,290]

17 hours ago, Bradley said:

It's really strange how award platforms like the Oscars still give more advantage to films released later in the year than those which were released mid-year. Like you're supposed to review all films submitted for your consideration, you're not supposed to take into account what films were released closer to the award season to make it fair. The Grammys acknowledged this and they endeavour to give fair advantage to all music released throughout the year which I respect.

It's because all the award season campaigns tend to start at the end of fall/beginning of winter. Campaigns tend to start the moment a movie is screened at Toronto or Venice (if they get a festival release) and pick up steam towards the end of the year. Movies that premiere at festivals like Cannes that get Oscar buzz in May then have to start campaigning all over again later in the year, when critics and the press will have jumped to other movies and voters will be sick of hearing of it (which is what happened to Carol)

So it's not that the Oscars give more advantage to films released later in the year. It's that you need to have a strong campaign and be able the elbow out some room for yourself amidst all the Oscar bait, which you can't do if your movie premiered in May (there have been exceptions).

The Academy voters are around February for the previous year, so unless the movie has amazingly strong legs it gets swallowed 

The Grammys are different because music has a completely different staying power than movies, and the voting process is different 

[YourEvilTwin 1,295]

It was never going to get a Competition slot at Cannes anyways, being a directorial debut and simply not the kind of film Cannes goes for. At best it would've been selected for Un Certain Regard (unlikely) or Directors' Fortnight, which means it would've premiered and been forgotten within hours because no one cares about non-Competition films. Might as well hold off for Venice where it stands a much better chance at getting into Competition.

[HookerOnAChurch 6,637]

very smart move from them