Steven Spielberg's spat with Netflix taps into larger fight over the future of movies
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Almost exactly a year ago, Steven Spielberg made it clear how he felt about Netflix muscling its way into Hollywood's most illustrious event, the Academy Awards.
The streaming giant's films are essentially TV movies, he said during a promotional tour for "Ready Player One," and the best of them "deserve an Emmy, not an Oscar."
Netflix, evidently, did not get the message. The company spent tens of millions of dollars on an Oscar campaign for Alfonso Cuarón's sweeping drama "Roma," and it finished the 91st Academy Awards with three major wins . And there are already signs Netflix will mount a similarly aggressive awards push this fall for "The Irishman," Martin Scorsese's big-budget mob epic.
Spielberg, who has said "the greatest contributions we can make as filmmakers is to give audiences the motion picture theatrical experience ," is not backing down. He is reportedly campaigning for film academy rules changes that could block streaming services from competing at the Oscars unless they give their movies a full-fledged run in theaters. In the eyes of many studio executives and multiplex owners, this is not some obscure bureaucratic squabble but a high-stakes fight for the future of the medium.
The tension and anxiety in the film industry blew out into the open in recent days, and some prominent industry figures came to Netflix's defense . Netflix, for its part, appeared to fire back at Spielberg , but it has also reportedly considered appeasing some of its vocal critics with more robust theatrical engagements for upcoming prestige projects.
The debate has been brewing since at least 2006, when Steven Soderbergh became the first Oscar-winning director to release a movie in theaters and on television over the same weekend with "Bubble," a low-budget murder mystery. The move shook Hollywood , and the Los Angeles Times asked the million-dollar question: "Is the great American tradition of going out to the movies on its way out?"
The film industry, more than a decade later, is still wrestling with that question. America's theatrical box office was buoyed last year by a string of massive hits, including "Black Panther" and "Avengers: Infinity War," and moviegoers have shown they will still turn out en masse for franchises like "Star Wars."
But the long-term future of theatrical exhibition is far less clear. Netflix gives its more than 150 million global subscribers good enough reason to stay on the couch instead of heading out to the local theater, threatening what some top-tier directors consider a cherished American ritual.
Spielberg and Christopher Nolan, the respected director behind the "Dark Knight" trilogy, are part of a cohort of filmmakers who have championed old-fashioned theatrical moviegoing — widescreen projection, premium sound, large crowds gathered in reverential silence — amid the rise of digital alternatives and sophisticated televisions.
In a 2014 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal , Nolan wrote that big-screen exhibition is "to the movie business what live concerts are to the music business — and no one goes to a concert to be played an MP3 on a bare stage." And as Spielberg put it at an audio awards show last month : "There’s nothing like going to a big dark theater with people you’ve never met before, and having the experience wash over you."
Spielberg, however, has been on the losing end of similar fights before. He once needed to be cajoled into releasing "E.T. The Extra Terrestrial" on VHS .
WHY IS EVERYBODY SO MAD?
Netflix angered Hollywood traditionalists by putting Cuarón's "Roma" in select theaters for only three weeks before making it available on its digital platform, flouting the usual 90-day "window" that separates a movie's run in theaters and its arrival in your living room.
The service's detractors, including the National Association of Theater Owners, dismissed the brief theatrical release as a perfunctory bid to satisfy Oscar eligibility rules, and some major theater chains refused to screen it .
Netflix CCO Ted Sarandos and Alfonso Cuarón attend the Vanity Fair Oscar Party in Beverly Hills, California, on Feb. 24. Dia Dipasupil / Getty Images
Netflix, for its part, has suggested that its convention-defying approach to distribution is supported by the habits and needs of contemporary audiences.
"In a world where consumer choice is driving everything — how we shop, how we order groceries, how we are entertained — we're trying to get to a place where consumers have theatrical viewing as a choice," Netflix film chief Scott Stuber told The New York Times in December .
"But we also think it is critical that, if you don't have the means or access or the time to go to a theater, you are still able to see movies without a long wait," Stuber added.
THE PRICE OF DOING BUSINESS
Netflix, at its core, is a technology company that runs on algorithms and reams of user data, giving the firm virtually unprecedented insight into the preferences of the modern moviegoer.
But it has also embraced the role of a studio, working to poach and please A-list filmmaking talent, including Cuarón, "The Shape of Water" auteur Guillermo del Toro, action king Michael Bay, indie darling Noah Baumbach and television brand names Ryan Murphy and Shonda Rhimes. (Spielberg, for the record, has also collaborated with Netflix, co-producing the WWII documentary series "Five Came Back.")
Scorsese could give the company an especially large feather in its cap with "The Irishman," a drama about the killing of Jimmy Hoffa that stars Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci and Harvey Keitel. Netflix scooped it up after old-school player Paramount Pictures balked at its hefty budget .
Scorsese wants a wide theatrical release for the film, and Netflix has been "working to get him one," according to The Hollywood Reporter , citing unnamed sources. A brief teaser trailer that aired during the Oscars contained what could be a clue, saying the film would drop "in theaters next fall."
But other industry luminaries seemed to question the importance of theatrical distribution altogether. Paul Schrader, who wrote the screenplays for Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver” and “The Last Temptation of Christ” and earned an Oscar nomination this year for his religious drama “First Reformed,” suggested that movie theaters may not be worth saving.
“The notion of squeezing 200+ people into a dark unventilated space to see a flickering image was created by exhibition economics [and] not any notion of the ‘theatrical experience,’” Schrader wrote in a Facebook post Saturday . “Netflix allows many financially marginal films to have a platform and that’s a good thing.”
Soderbergh, the filmmaker whose unorthodox release strategy for “Bubble” helped kickstart this debate 13 years ago, is also skeptical that theatrical exhibition is the be-all and end-all. “I’m pretty agnostic about the venue,” the iconoclastic director, who has lately taken to shooting movies on iPhones, said in a 2017 interview .
The top streaming services are clearly betting that average moviegoers are agnostic, too. Soderbergh’s next film, a docudrama about the Panama Papers scandal called “The Laundromat,” arrives on Netflix this fall.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
I have Netflix and I still enjoy going to the movies, especially since they came out with reclining chairs and reserved seating. There is still something about seeing a movie on a really big screen. I think that there is room in the market place for both.
What's your take?
I've only gone to see one movie in a movie theatre in the past 11 years - the final Hobbit movie in 4 D (only because one of my students invited me to accompany him). There is an IMAX and multi-screen theatre across the road from where I live and I have no intention to go there. There are around 7 movie channels on my 40 inch screen TV here and they show films all day and evening free from around the world, and there are at least 2 English language ones if not more on screen at any one time. They show films extending from Charlie Chaplin silent era to movies that were released a few years ago. I'm very comfortable lounging on an L-shaped couch while I watch, and my snacks don't cost an arm and a leg.
I haven't been to a indoor theater since the eighties, I went to a Drive in a few times in the summer of 91. There's still a Drive in in operation a couple miles from me and I wouldn't mind going there at some point but no more indoor theaters. There's something about sitting in an upholstered seat that thousands of people have sat in that grosses me out. I like to watch movies at home and I sometimes rent them from Amazon if there's a newer movie I want to see. The Theater just can't compete with my house, at home I have cheap food (I can even get food delivered), clean furniture, no irritating strangers, private restroom, pillows and sweatpants, and best of all Pause and Rewind.
I loved drive ins. They were so much fun and a cheap night out if you had kids
Would be a great place to see this.....
Dear Friend Zuksam: In my youth, as a family we went to watch Cecile B. De Mille's, The Ten Commandments at a Drive In Movie.
I found it interesting that teens and twenty somethings in cars on wither side of us were breaking at least five commandments in each car while Charleton Heston was receiving the Stone Tablets on the big screen.
Enoch, Singing, "Let's all go to the lobby, and get ourselves a treat".
Last time I went to the Drive In near my house we started to watch the movie "Bugsy" but it stunk, luckily the Drive In has three screens so you can just move your car and watch another movie.
Its getting harder and harder where I live to even find a drive in theater.
Most of the land has been re-purposed for more profitable use.
I am glad you had some options at your last viewing.
E.
There is the one in Avon and of course Silver Lake.
Dear Friend Veronica: Also one on 104 west, going towards Niagara Falls.
Thanks for the two you suggested.
After the upstate defrosts, have to give them a try.
E.
The last time I went to the movies was for the Lord of The Rings trilogy. Going to theaters has become so expensive lately that I find it far easier to just wait a few months to wait for it to come out on DVD and/or watch it on Netflix.
This issue is incredibly simple. The Academy Awards are for theatrical movies. Essentially Spielberg is right, but it has nothing to do with him being "old" or stodgy, it is just the reality of what the award is for. Changing that to accommodate Netflix is a total slippery slope. Will HBO be next to say their films and performances should be nominated for Oscars? How about CBS All Access , I think they make movies. Hulu does. The streaming channel Cracked does. A few years back there was a two part HBO movie titled Olive Kitteridge, in which the actress Frances McDormand gives one of the best acting performances you will ever see. (She plays a mentally ill woman who dominates her family in a small New England town. ) If it had been eligible for the Oscars she would have won hands down. But she wasn't, it was a television movie and Mc Dormand and the movie won Emmy awards that year.
There is nothing wrong with an Emmy award, it is a fine award. Maybe Netflix or other companies that make movies for home streaming should start their own award. Since that is the future , it seems, of entertainment, it won't be too long before the new award has more prestige than the Oscars.
And Spielberg doesn't object to movies made by Netflix being eligible for Academy Awards, he just wants a requirement that they play exclusively in theaters for a period before they are made available for home viewing. I dont think that is unreasonable IF someone wants to win an Academy Award for their work.
I think Spielberg has a point since the only way most of us can see a Netflix Movie is to buy their service. Sure there are many independent Movies that we may not have access to in Theaters but they are generally available to buy or rent by everyone though multiple streaming services or on DVD. I would say that if Netflix wants their movies to be eligible for the Oscars they should have to make those movies more widely available to non-Netflix consumers. If Netflix movies are good enough to contend for an Oscar then they should be available for all Theaters to show them (if they choose) and they should be sold and rented on Amazon, VUDU, DVD, and others like every other non-TV movie. When NBC, TNT, or USA makes a movie you can only view that movie on that channel, that's what makes it a TV Movie and that's what Netflix Movies are.
I tend to agree with you, but Netflix would have one good argument. You can get Netflix on a month by month basis. You could think for example that you want to watch Roma, a Netflix movie that just won a few Academy Awards. You can see Roma on Netflix for 11.99 (or whatever it is they charge per month) , and also see as many other movies and shows you want to watch on Netflix that month, and then cancel the service. You have only paid 11.99
A few months later or when you see another movie on Netflix you want to see you could do the same thing again. It would cost no more than going to a movie theater would, and you also be able to see as many other movies or shows that you wanted to watch on Netflix that month.
The problem with that argument is it's still only available on Netflix and there are many Networks who now have websites and offer their content for streaming if you are a subscriber to their channel through your cable company. That puts those networks on the same level as Netflix yet their movies are still only eligible for Emmys not Oscars. Should they all be eligible ? If not the line has to be drawn somewhere and rules haven't kept up with the Technology. I really don't care that much as I have no skin in the game but it seems the rules should be clear and fair so if Netflix Movies are eligible then so would AMC's Movies since both are available to stream online.
I rarely go to movie theaters. The price and the fact that I have to deal with other people during a movie (talkers, children, etc). In my own home I can pause to use the rest room or take a call.
I do like the new seats in the theater closest to my home, also the reserved seating is nice. The last movie I saw in the theater was The Meg (yes I know - but my son & I both wanted to see the "bad" movie on the big screen). We both found it to be entertaining.
Is Spielberg that frightened by Netflix? Maybe he should try reining in costs so people can go to the movies more often. Trickle down pricing anyone?
Also is Spielberg complaining that Jaws is now view able on Netflix (he should be making money on that). Are the awards even that big of a deal any more?
Just my lowly, humble opinion.
Dear Friend Veronica: On non-holiday Saturday nights when we are not going out, and we are not entertaining Mrs. E. and I fire up our screen and watch a Netflix movie of choice.
We pause mid way.
We enjoy fresh brewed decaf, and a square of high cocoa dark chocolate.
That is our time together.
The cost of Netflix and a home made snack is very much cheaper than the same time spent at a theater buying tickets, and over priced garbage food at the concesions stand.
In our own home we can pause for an intermission, or to use the facility and not miss anything.
It is our time alone.
No one can interrupt that.
Not other patrons.
No phone calls, etc.
Our time.
That kind of customized privacy is not available at any price outside our house.
By the bye, that "just us alone" time happens to be way more affordable than theater attendance, parking and snacks.
I am with you.
Enoch, Looking Forward to Saturday Night's Forthcoming.
I like to curl up on the couch under my favorite fuzzy blanket in my jamies, maybe sipping a cocktail & eating freshly popped popcorn while watching a movie.
Dear Friend Veronica: Sounds great!
E.
I can’t stand what movie theaters have become these days. A far cry from the grand movie houses of the past. I avoid them like the plague. We did go to watch a movie last summer at a pop up drive-in in the town of Minturn not far from me. I went more for the social gathering and to see what it was all about than the actual movie experience. It’s one of those places you can (BYOB) bring your own bong. I like the town and have fond memories of drive-in movies from my childhood. I still remember my parents taking me to see Herbie the love bug at a drive-in at the age of five.
I remember seeing 101 Dalmatians at the drive in when I was a kid. We have one or two of them left in our area. My husband and I (when we were dating back a thousand years ago) used to go to the drive in a lot.
I remember my parents took us all to a drive in. I think I was about 10. She wanted to see A Star is Born.
Unfortunately for her it was a double feature. The first movie was the original The Longest Yard, with Burt Reynolds. She was horrified. They cussed throughout the whole movie.
Learned quite a few new words that night.
I actually saw Star Wars at the drive in. It was fandamntastic. Watching that star destroyer at the beginning on that HUGE screen was amazing.
And I thought I was just about the only person who doesn't like going to movie theaters paying for over priced tickets and popcorn!
Personally, I don't have a stake in this because I don't care about the Oscars. I do like Netflix and I think they have a great product that is well worth the price. I can't say that for the movie theaters. I don;t care how many amenities they start giving people, I probably won't step foot in one ever again.
ps...I don't like live concerts, either
The last time I saw a show was at a casino here.
Some one near us kept farting every five minutes. Smelled terrible. Just when you thought it would stop, it happened again.
Finally after about 30 minutes, a man got up and left. The flatulence went with him.
Ah the Oscars.
Where the so called 'stars' congratulate each other.
Nothing like watching people that make millions of dollars acting like royalty and patting each other on the back.
No thanks...