2018 Films and Oscars - Movies & TV - Forums : Best Ever Albums

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

I've heard the festivals films are strong this year. We'll see when they hit theaters, or a streaming service depending on distribution. TIFF is usually good for some great ones.

As for the Academy, the fact they even suggested a best popular film category is kinda sad. I know they're under pressure to deliver good ratings for ABC, and ratings just keep declining. But there has to be other ways.

Anyhoo, has anyone seen Black Klansman? I'm trying to see it this weekend. Is it as good as everyone says?

badseed

Gender: Male
Age: 35
Location: FL

StreetSpirit wrote:

I've heard the festivals films are strong this year. We'll see when they hit theaters, or a streaming service depending on distribution. TIFF is usually good for some great ones.

As for the Academy, the fact they even suggested a best popular film category is kinda sad. I know they're under pressure to deliver good ratings for ABC, and ratings just keep declining. But there has to be other ways.

Anyhoo, has anyone seen Black Klansman? I'm trying to see it this weekend. Is it as good as everyone says?

Best Popular Film?

What are the boundaries that determine if a film is "popular" enough? There's usually at least one nominee every year that makes 100 million dollars, isn't there? Wouldn't the highest grossing best picture nominee win by default? Only way the category even makes sense is if every year it's the 5 (or 10) highest grossing films that are nominated. For example, last year's highest grossing domestic films were The Last Jedi, Beauty and the Beast, Wonder Woman, Jumanji, and Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (the academy would probably pick Wonder Woman). I mean it's cute I suppose and would be neat to look back on from a historical perspective but it seems more like something that belongs at the MTV movie awards or at best the Golden Globes.

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

badseed wrote:

Best Popular Film?

What are the boundaries that determine if a film is "popular" enough?

Interesting hypothetical question. I guess we'll never know since they wisely scrapped the idea.

badseed wrote:

I mean it's cute I suppose and would be neat to look back on from a historical perspective but it seems more like something that belongs at the MTV movie awards or at best the Golden Globes.

Thus all the harsh criticism that led the Academy to retract the idea in the first place.

I finally saw Black Klansman today. Great movie. Will likely make my Top 10 of 2018 unless the year finishes very strongly.

Hayden

Location: CDMX

Well, with TIFF halfway done, I don't think these are awful guesses:

Picture: Roma
Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Actor: Willem Dafoe
Actress: Lady Gaga or Melissa McCarthy
Sup. Actor: Timothee Chalamet
Sup. Actress: Amy Adams
OG Screenplay: Roma
Adapt Screenplay: If Beale Street Could Talk
Original Song: Something from A Star Is Born or Mary Poppins.
Score: At Eternity's Gate (haven't heard the score yet, but apparently it's gorgeous). If not, I dunno... First Man?
Doc: Won't You Be My Neighbour?
Foreign Film: Shoplifters or Roma
Animated: Isle of Dogs (well... it'll be that or Incredibles 2...)
Make-Up: Destroyer

Inspired by tonight's episode of Better Call Saul Anxious

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

I just watched Hold the Dark and it got me thinking about the current state of movies and where the art and business are heading.

Hold the Dark was distributed by Netflix. Like previous films distributed by Netflix, it was released on its streaming platform the same day it started a limited theatrical release. How limited? Well it's playing in only one theater in all of Los Angeles, the film capital of the world. And by this Friday, that theater will no longer be screening it.

So why release it in a theater at all? The answer is because it's a formality required by the Academy to be Oscar eligible. We saw the same thing last year with Mudbound, which was placed in a couple theaters in NYC and LA for one week, then was pulled. And then it went on to score a few Oscar nominations.

What are your thoughts on this?

A couple years ago, Amazon distributed Manchester by the Sea. But the difference is they released it widely in theaters months before making it available to stream on Amazon Prime. And as we remember, Manchester made solid money at the box office, and was one of the most Oscar-nominated films of the year (and even won a couple). Mudbound didn't get nearly the number nominations and didn't win any. Maybe the Academy thought Manchester was better? Or maybe they simply don't like Netflix because of how they distribute their films, and what they represent?

To be fair, Netflix is taking a shit on tradition here. Netflix has been rebels within the industry from Day 1.

Do you agree with the Academy's rule that a film has to be released theatrically to be Oscar-eligible?

Do you agree with Netflix's distribution model?

It appears Netflix doesn't believe their films can attract a big theatrical audience. The company stands to make even more money if their films are box office hits. On the other hand, that could backfire if their films flop. But under their current distribution model, where a very limited one-week theatrical run begins the same day it begins streaming, obviously their films aren't gonna make anything at the box office.

I feel something is lost here. It appears Netflix is slowly killing the idea of going to the movie theaters, but at the same time they want Academy recognition. They got some recognition for Mudbound, as many raved about how great the cinematography was. And yeah, the cinematography in that film was great, even on my 32" TV screen at standard HD. However, Mudbound would've looked much more magnificent at the theater in 4K on the big screen. Netflix however, deprived us all that opportunity...yet they want Academy recognition. Sounds hypocritical to me.

Anyway, I thought Hold the Dark was just okay.

Hayden

Location: CDMX

I think it helps narrow the spectrum when a film has to have at least a 1-week release. There's plenty of movies out there that don't get theatrical releases at all (uuuussaalllly for a reason), so I think the rule is primarily just to limit the scope (not that it matters, everything's sent via screener). I think it's a reasonable rule though.

I'm old, so I still like seeing movies on big screens anyway. I also don't have Netflix, so, yeah, but regardless, I'd far prefer watching something like Roma or Lazzaro Felice in a cinema than on a home TV. It affects how you perceive the film. Dunkirk on a 40"? Pfffft. You're only getting half of the experience.

Quote:

It appears Netflix doesn't believe their films can attract a big theatrical audience. The company stands to make even more money if their films are box office hits. On the other hand, that could backfire if their films flop. But under their current distribution model, where a very limited one-week theatrical run begins the same day it begins streaming, obviously their films aren't gonna make anything at the box office.

Festivals definitely help (for a number of reasons), but I'd agree in saying Netflix should have maybe a 2-week run or something before going to the platform (which, I think sometimes they do).

However, Cannes not allowing Netflix films into competition is just French pretentiousness. Don't agree with that. They've let TV movies in before, so they really just threw a hissy fit.

Also, Hold The Dark was pretty bad. Can't see it getting an Oscar love. Yes, I pirated it.

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

Hayden wrote:

I think it helps narrow the spectrum when a film has to have at least a 1-week release. There's plenty of movies out there that don't get theatrical releases at all (uuuussaalllly for a reason), so I think the rule is primarily just to limit the scope (not that it matters, everything's sent via screener). I think it's a reasonable rule though.

I'm old, so I still like seeing movies on big screens anyway. I also don't have Netflix, so, yeah, but regardless, I'd far prefer watching something like Roma or Lazzaro Felice in a cinema than on a home TV. It affects how you perceive the film. Dunkirk on a 40"? Pfffft. You're only getting half of the experience.

Yup, I would agree with all of this. The theater is a simply a much better experience. And I would take the Academy's rule even further by requiring theatrical distribution for at least a month or two before streaming is allowed, like how Amazon distributed Manchester.

Hayden wrote:

Also, Hold The Dark was pretty bad. Can't see it getting an Oscar love. Yes, I pirated it.

Hold the Dark is Oscar-eligible since it's been released in an LA theater. But I don't see it getting any noms either. Saulnier movies aren't the Oscar-type movies anyway. Shame on you for pirating. Just use a friend's password. That's what I do, lol.

Not that I care much for the Academy, but I like that they stick to this theatrical tradition. The broader issue here is the ongoing distribution battle between theaters and streaming. And it seems streaming is winning. But hey, MoviePass and AMC Stubs A-List are here in 2018, and I believe they've contributed to the increase in ticket sales this year. So it's certainly not the end for the theaters any time soon. It would suck if that ever happened. Dunkirk on a smartphone? Ugh.

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

https://www.filmstruck.com/us/

https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/f...202998364/

Just what we need, more bad news in the film world in 2018. Today it was announced Filmstruck will be shutting down next month. For those of you who don't know, Filmstruck was a streaming service for classic films, foreign films, arthouse films, documentaries, Criterion Collection, etc.

This will be a tough pill for me to swallow. Filmstruck is the reason I canceled Netflix earlier this year. Netflix's movie selection sucked balls and has only gotten worse since from what I've seen, while Filmstruck's movie selection was infinitely better. It'll be very sad to see it go next month. But I suppose that's the film business in 2018 for you. With so many sources of content and so many streaming services, I guess there wasn't enough demand for it. The article says Filmstruck's parent company 'wants to shift away from niche-oriented business ventures and towards mass-market entertainment.' The article has more details.

Mercury, I know you're on BEhiAtus, but if you read this, thank you for bringing Filmstruck to my attention. Glad I got some use out of it before it shuts down next month. And here's hoping a similar service takes its place in the near future.

Hayden

Location: CDMX

StreetSpirit wrote:

https://www.filmstruck.com/us/

https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/f...202998364/

Just what we need, more bad news in the film world in 2018. Today it was announced Filmstruck will be shutting down next month. For those of you who don't know, Filmstruck was a streaming service for classic films, foreign films, arthouse films, documentaries, Criterion Collection, etc.

This will be a tough pill for me to swallow. Filmstruck is the reason I canceled Netflix earlier this year. Netflix's movie selection sucked balls and has only gotten worse since from what I've seen, while Filmstruck's movie selection was infinitely better. It'll be very sad to see it go next month. But I suppose that's the film business in 2018 for you. With so many sources of content and so many streaming services, I guess there wasn't enough demand for it. The article says Filmstruck's parent company 'wants to shift away from niche-oriented business ventures and towards mass-market entertainment.' The article has more details.

Mercury, I know you're on BEhiAtus, but if you read this, thank you for bringing Filmstruck to my attention. Glad I got some use out of it before it shuts down next month. And here's hoping a similar service takes its place in the near future.

That's a shame Confused

I don't have FilmStruck, but I've heard it's phenomenal, particularly with the CC package. Surprised it's being cut... I don't have strong details about what goes into running a subscription-based TV/Film company (i.e. Netflix), but after two years of operation/set-up, surely it's more of an asset than a liability? How can you be operating at a loss?

I'm 50/50 on whether or not I could see Criterion Collection beginning their own service. Their sales keep them alive, but if there's a gap in the market... well... could work. Otherwise, the current alternative for harder-to-find films is... piracy?

And since when are good films niche? Neutral

PurpleHazel

After only two years, this is shocking! Best deal for art film lovers in the history of the world (except for maybe the old Hulu Criterion channel).

Hayden wrote:

I don't have strong details about what goes into running a subscription-based TV/Film company (i.e. Netflix), but after two years of operation/set-up, surely it's more of an asset than a liability? How can you be operating at a loss?

Yeah, you'd think that once the infrastructure of a streaming service has been paid off, it'd be mostly profit.

Speculation on another forum is that the AT&T-Time Warner merger is the cause. Actually, the Variety article more or less states it outright.

Quote:

I'm 50/50 on whether or not I could see Criterion Collection beginning their own service.

Technically, it was Criterion's own service -- they considered it theirs. From what I understand it was a partnership with Time-Warner. It looks now like maybe it wasn't an equal one. In theory, I think a completely standalone Criterion streaming service would be viable -- there are art film streaming services with only a tiny fraction of their selection that have been around for many years -- but after this experience I think it's more likely Criterion partners with someone else like Amazon.

I wouldn't mind if Criterion went back to Hulu, but with the special features included. Hulu actually had less streaming issues, was a more stable platform than Filmstruck.

Netflix's movie selection is terrible -- it's been bad for a long time, but keeps getting worse as more content companies pull out.