Spielberg wants Netflix banned from Oscars

[Morphine Prince 104,982]

Foolish old man. 

Netflix is putting out award winning films. He’s just pressed the money isn’t all going their way. 

[BenG 19,908]

No one is saying that Netflix films dont deserve awards, just that Oscars might not be the appropriate one

[gagzus 15,773]

Sounds to me like he’s lowkey pressed that they’re making quality content that’s almost better than mainstream cinema tbh. 

[LordEnigma 11,313]

14 hours ago, Pray4FameGa said:

Nice try Netflix.

Subscription costs way more than a cinema ticket though. 

Yeah it costs more than one ticket but you have a library of TV shows and movies 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

14 hours ago, Pray4FameGa said:

Nice try Netflix.

Subscription costs way more than a cinema ticket though. 

But you are getting way more than just one movie. Also you are thinking very selfishly. A trip to the movies for a family is very expensive. Are only single people allowed to enjoy movies at a reasonable price? 

[Glamourpuss 29,062]

I think he's right. He does have a valid point.
 

[Glamourpuss 29,062]

53 minutes ago, gagzus said:

Sounds to me like he’s lowkey pressed that they’re making quality content that’s almost better than mainstream cinema tbh. 

They aren't though. I agree it's quality content compared to other TV networks but the content is not in the same calibre as the Oscar nominated films. Bird box for example is extremely overhyped. There are better films out there but because Netflix is pretty much all that most young people watch they think that's a good example of a great film when it's just average.

[BenG 19,908]

Netflix films are more similar to TV films in terms of consumption. You sit down at home and consume it typically on a small screen. Movie films require you to go to a theatre watch it on a big screen.

[Pray4FameGa 3,141]

3 hours ago, Glamourpuss said:

They aren't though. I agree it's quality content compared to other TV networks but the content is not in the same calibre as the Oscar nominated films. Bird box for example is extremely overhyped. There are better films out there but because Netflix is pretty much all that most young people watch they think that's a good example of a great film when it's just average.

Exactly.

If Birdbox has been released in theatre, it would have flopped hard.

Im with Spielberg on this one.

[Glamourpuss 29,062]

5 hours ago, BenG said:

Netflix films are more similar to TV films in terms of consumption. You sit down at home and consume it typically on a small screen. Movie films require you to go to a theatre watch it on a big screen.

It's more than that just that. The cinematography is completely different too and they have bigger budgets to spend on sets, costumes, etc.

Netflix will only be spending a fraction of that because they wouldn't make their money back if they quadrupled the budgets for their films.

 

[Zander 14,910]

12 minutes ago, Glamourpuss said:

It's more than that just that. The cinematography is completely different too and they have bigger budgets to spend on sets, costumes, etc.

Netflix will only be spending a fraction of that because they wouldn't make their money back if they quadrupled the budgets for their films.

 

Bigger budgets doesn't mean a better movie. Some of the more successful movies out there have had smaller budgets.

Moonlight $1.5 Million, Get Out $4.5 Million, Friday The 13th $550,000, Paranormal Activity $15,000 as small examples.

Birdbox had a budget of $19.8 million 

[Glamourpuss 29,062]

5 minutes ago, XanderC said:

Bigger budgets doesn't mean a better movie. Some of the more successful movies out there have had smaller budgets.

Moonlight $1.5 Million, Get Out $4.5 Million, Friday The 13th $550,000, Paranormal Activity $15,000 as small examples.

This is about the fairness of the Oscar nominations. 

Paranormal Activity would never have been Oscar nominated.  You've proved my point by listing these films. 

The Academy awards are for real cinematography and art.  

[Zander 14,910]

20 minutes ago, Glamourpuss said:

This is about the fairness of the Oscar nominations. 

Paranormal Activity would never have been Oscar nominated.  You've proved my point by listing these films. 

The Academy awards are for real cinematography and art.  

If you're talking about that you need to spend more to make a better film thats not always true. Get Out won best original screenplay at The Oscars, and Moonlight won Best Picture - both on considerably low budgets. 

Birdbox was never going to be nominated for an Academy Award but If Netflix produce a film that is widely acclaimed I don't see why it can't be nominated for an Academy Award after all you said it's about and real cinematography and if it has that, then whats the problem? 

Edit: Does Roma count as a "TV Movie" - because it was on Netflix less than 2 weeks after its premiere? Netflix produces content, whether that be TV Series, or Movies. Just because of the way we choose to stream this content doesn't make it any less eligible... and if they produce something exceptional then surely it deserves that academy nomination.

[Glamourpuss 29,062]

15 minutes ago, XanderC said:

If you're talking about that you need to spend more to make a better film thats not always true. Get Out won best original screenplay at The Oscars, and Moonlight won Best Picture - both on considerably low budgets. 

Birdbox was never going to be nominated for an Academy Award but If Netflix produce a film that is widely acclaimed I don't see why it can't be nominated for an Academy Award after all you said it's about and real cinematography and if it has that, then whats the problem? 

Edit: Does Roma count as a "TV Movie" - because it was on Netflix less than 2 weeks after its premiere? Netflix produces content, whether that be TV Series, or Movies. Just because of the way we choose to stream this content doesn't make it any less eligible... and if they produce something exceptional then surely it deserves that academy nomination.

No it's not about the money. But a larger budget allows filmmakers to spend more on sets and costumes, etc. That's the only correlation I made. 

I'm mainly talking about made for TV films having a lower quality than those in the theatre. It wouldn't be fair for a film like Bird Box for example to be nominated and up against a film that was a higher quality through and through. 

It's not about the money but quality. 

I never saw Roma but from the bits I did see, it was eligible for a nomination. However I can understand Spielberg's frustration because now it's like where do you draw the line?

[Zander 14,910]

8 minutes ago, Glamourpuss said:

No it's not about the money. But a larger budget allows filmmakers to spend more on sets and costumes, etc. That's the only correlation I made. 

I'm mainly talking about made for TV films having a lower quality than those in the theatre. It wouldn't be fair for a film like Bird Box for example to be nominated and up against a film that was a higher quality through and through. 

It's not about the money but quality. 

I never saw Roma but from the bits I did see, it was eligible for a nomination. However I can understand Spielberg's frustration because now it's like where do you draw the line?

I completely understand your point and like you said its knowing where to draw the line. To be eligible for an Oscar there really isn't many constraints to it as you can see... https://www.oscars.org/oscars/rules-eligibility & https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/91th-general_entry_submission_requirements.pdf - perhaps that might change but the fact that the Academy have accepted Netflix films is showing there moving forward.