The best films of 2018 (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

The Academy Awards are designed to honor theatrically released motion pictures. Netflix films, by definition, are made for home viewing.

I don't think of it as the Academy punishing filmmakers for working with Netflix; I think it's just recognition that they're working in a different medium. If Cuaron or Scorsese or the Coens had made their new movies for HBO, there would be no question that those were TV movies not eligible for theatrical rewards. I don't see the Academy taking the same stand with Netflix as being any different than that.

Netflix tries to get around this by showing a film in a few theaters just long enough for it to qualify as a theatrical release. But the way they go about it, it seems to me that they're more about paying attention to the letter of the rule rather than the spirit of it. Both Cuaron and the Coens films played theatrically, but not in any meaningful capacity meant to attract an audience; they were just put on a few screens long enough so that technically it could be considered a theatrical release. I don't begrudge the Academy for seeing through that for the maneuvering that it is and not being enthused about voting for such titles.

Amazon has made films too (like "Manchester by the Sea") and their films have been nominated for, and won, some pretty major awards. But the difference is that Amazon does more than just give their films the smallest possible qualifying run; they actually release them to theaters as normally releases, and add them to their streaming service after the theatrical window has met its natural end.

Netflix wants to release their films primarily for a home audience, but wants the award recognition that comes with a theatrical release. I don't think they should be allowed to have it both ways.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The Academy Awards are designed to honor theatrically released motion pictures. Netflix films, by definition, are made for home viewing.

Just curious: Do you still hold this to be the case for feature films that were made independently for theatrical viewing, but later picked up by Netflix for distribution while on the festival circuit?

Roma was filmed in 2016, and Netflix didn't get involved until Spring 2018. So at the time it was shot, Cuarón wouldn't have had any reason to believe it wasn't headed to theaters.

I think the line between film and television as mediums has been blurring since the mass rollout of VHS in the late seventies, and has gotten so blurry as to be virtually non-existent in the age of streaming.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Yes, this is the thing. Primarily what Netflix is doing is picking up distribution of these films. If they get a theatrical run they qualify as theatrical releases. The brief open in New York and Los Angeles for awards consideration has been done for years.

What is happening here is the filmmakers are being punished because their films have to go to Netflix for distribution because in many cases theater chains don't want them or don't care about them. Adult feature films sell nowhere near as many tickets as a super hero picture, a sequel, a low brow comedy, or an animated family film.

And here's what I find hugely hypocritical if they have an issue with Netflix releasing films in the cinemas that will take them and also on their streaming service...

For years they have been sending out screeners so that Academy voters can watch these "theatrical releases" at home. Truth is this is how many of the Academy voters watch the films they vote on. So, in this instance they really don't give a flying crap about the "theatrical experience" of seeing a film. It's fine with the Academy if you just watch it at home on your TV.

Netflix is essentially doing the same thing. You can go see the film in a major city or watch it at home.

This will come to a head because Martin Scorsese has a deal to get his next film, The Irishman, into cinemas for a "limited run" because I believe he and everybody involved with the film thinks they made a film for cinemas and expect it to be eligible for major awards.

It is after all Scorsese's biggest budgeted film in his career...and some dolt at the Academy is going to tell him it's a "TV movie" because Netflix had to help finance it and picked up the distribution? That truly would be a joke...and not one I think Scorsese would laugh at.

It's not the fault of filmmakers that they have to go to somebody like Netflix to get their films out there and that the way people watch films has changed. They are not setting out to make TV movies but Netflix is a company that spends money for adult content...and so they shell out for these pictures.

Filmmakers should not be punished for this. The Academy wants a picture to have an "exclusive" three month run in cinemas prior to getting any sort of distribution for home viewing. That model is kind of funny since not many films even play for 3 months in a cinema anymore.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Yes, this is the thing. Primarily what Netflix is doing is picking up distribution of these films. If they get a theatrical run they qualify as theatrical releases. The brief open in New York and Los Angeles for awards consideration has been done for years.

Not in this way, it hasn't. You have to admit, this is different. That stuff was going on with small independent and foreign language films

What is happening here is the filmmakers are being punished because their films have to go to Netflix for distribution because in many cases theater chains don't want them or don't care about them. Adult feature films sell nowhere near as many tickets as a super hero picture, a sequel, a low brow comedy, or an animated family film.

OK, so Steven Soderbergh can shoot a low-budget drama on an iPhone and get it onto 2,000+ screens but Martin Scorsese can't get a gangster film with DeNiro and Pesci into theaters? Sorry, I'm having trouble buying that. I think Netflix is the highest bidder and that's the reason, They're willing to pay more because they want to build up a film library of their own.

And here's what I find hugely hypocritical if they have an issue with Netflix releasing films in the cinemas that will take them and also on their streaming service...

But Netflix isn't releasing films in the cinemas that will take them. Amazon is. Netflix would be happy not to put their films into cinemas at all.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Just curious: Do you still hold this to be the case for feature films that were made independently for theatrical viewing, but later picked up by Netflix for distribution while on the festival circuit?

Probably - it’s not so different than indie movies that end up making their debut as straight-to-video or straight-to-cable releases.

I totally agree with your point that the lines between all of these things are more blurred than ever.

This is probably a larger discussion, but there just isn’t an award at the moment that best covers what companies like Netflix do. They’re often in a position of being neither fish nor fowl, as the old saying goes.

I think part of the problem with the Academy Awards in recent years is that it’s not really paying attention to or reflecting where moviegoing is at today. Whether you like where movies are at or not, I don’t think there’s much denying that the Academy results are not coming close to matching audience preferences. And I’m not saying turn the Oscars into the People’s Choice Awards. I am saying that when Netflix makes a movie, or when it buys a movie from another production entity, they’re not buying it to get people to go out to theaters. They’re buying it for people to watch at home. I’d love to keep the Oscars about honoring movies that are made and released with the primary intention of being viewed in theaters.

I think there should be a venue for honoring quality original films released by streaming entities for home viewing, I’m just not convinced that the Oscars are the right venue for that.

 

[Jake Lipson]

To be fair, I *think* Roma has had a wider theatrical release than normal for Netflix standards. I got to see it in a theater here, and I was not expecting to have that opportunity. However, it's very hard to actually know how wide it is because Netflix refuses to release that information (or what its box office returns are.)

If Cuaron was making it for a theatrical release, and Netflix actually gives a title a meaningful theatrical release, then I think it absolutely qualifies for awards. However, they can't ask to be treated like a theatrical release if they are not going to release information about the theatrical release that every other studio would. That's how they're trying to have it both ways, and I think that's a weird message to be sending when they want to be taken seriously by the Academy.

I've mentioned this in another thread, but Amazon is confident enough in the value of their films that they don't need to be restrictive like Amazon is. They view the theatrical component as adding value because it makes their films a known quantity before they arrive on Prime -- people view them as "real movies" and are aware of them when they stream because of buzz generated from its previous presence in the theatrical marketplace. And Amazon knows that they can sell me a Blu-ray copy of The Big Sick (which they did) and I'm not going to cancel Prime just because I own that film. Netflix seems to value their exclusivity above all things.

And yet for something like The Irishman, which Netflix is financing, would not exist if it weren't for Netflix. So they cannot be considered the bad guy here. They are providing funding for filmmakers to make projects that (in many cases) would not get made by other studios....which is fantastic. I just wish they understood the value of what a theatrical release can bring them, which they obviously don't.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

While there have been films made for Netflix guys like Scorsese, Cuaron, and the Coens were not specifically making TV movies for a streaming service.

Of the people I mention Netflix was most involved with Scorsese's picture and they were not involved at the start. So, he did not set out making a film for Netflix nor was there a sell to the highest bidder thing going on. Once the production began the people financing the film looked at the numbers and thought, "This film is going to cost over 200 million so it will need to make nearly $700 million to be profitable." so, this is when they cut a deal with Netflix to provide extra funds and sold them exclusive distribution on it.

None of that has anything to do with what Scorsese was doing. That's just the commerce side of things. Truth is they were correct, I do not believe any Scorsese picture has ever made $700 million so they were not wrong thinking they would likely not turn a profit on it.

An R-rated drama geared toward an adult audience is not likely to generate that kind of box office. So, somebody had to make a financial decision on it.

In reality, Netflix is the hero here because they are saving these pictures and getting them out there. I do not at all see Netflix as the bad guy. I think if the Academy is portraying them that way and won't recognize the work of great filmmakers because Netflix is handling the distribution then it is clearly the Academy that is wrong.

They are ignoring the art and punishing the filmmakers over information about how many and the length of time these films are shown in a cinema? That makes no sense.

So, Netflix is saving the art (they also got The Other Side of the Wind finally completed and in front of people) because they are spending money on films that other people just see as "unprofitable" for cinemas. I don't think the theater chains even want to show these films. You look at domestic grosses on the last few films from the Coens and except for True Grit, which seems to be their biggest hit, those Coen pictures are $30 million, $13 million, $9 million...this translates to theater owners as empty seats, no popcorn and soda sales, and just give us more sequels and comic book films.

If Netflix shells out the cash for these pictures then it is understandable that they want some sort of exclusivity on them as well. I don't think it should matter how long they get them in cinemas for or what information they share about that. Those are just minor details that really are about financials.

 

[Jake Lipson]

While there have been films made for Netflix guys like Scorsese, Cuaron, and the Coens were not specifically making TV movies for a streaming service

The thing is that the Academy Awards were designed to recognize theatrically released motion pictures. If the movies do not receive a theatrical release, they become a straight-to-home video release, whether that is what the creators intended or not. For the Academy, I suspect the issue is about protecting the value of the theatrical release, and if they choose to act in this manner, there is nothing wrong with that.

Roma -- and the other films which Netflix has purchased -- absolutely would have had the opportunity to play in theaters if they had been sold to other distributors. A24, Fox Searchlight, Focus Features, Sony Pictures Classics, and distributors like that who specialize in arthouse films would absolutely have been willing to put Roma out, and theaters would have played it. Amazon would have too. The producers of the film simply chose to sell it to Netflix. In doing so, they chose to forfeit a traditional theatrical release model. That's just the way it works when you sign with Netflix.

That doesn't make Netflix the bad guy -- it means they (Netflix) are doing a different thing than the Academy traditionally recognizes. That's all. The filmmakers who chose to work with Netflix are not being punished, because they knew when accepting funding from Netflix that this would be the distribution model, and they made an informed choice to do so. Netflix hides viewership data, but they have never hidden their preference for having their content available on the streaming service as soon as possible. And the major theater chains (AMC, Cinemark, Regal) have, rightly, refused to carry the films because they believe that protecting their window of theatrical exclusivity is vital for the survival of their business model.

According to Academy rules, Roma is eligible, because it has fulfilled its required theatrical run, although it is of an incredibly nominal and secretive nature. We will see whether or not the Academy membership at large cares about how nominal it was when nominations are announced. They can decide whether they want to nominate it or they don't. It is entirely possible that they will choose to nominate it in several categories -- and it is also entirely possible that they will not. It's also possible that it will get nominated, but that individual voters will choose to go with another film in the category which did have a more traditional theatrical release.

We'll see which way it shakes out when the nominations and the winners are announced, but we won't know what specifically led voters to vote the way they do because vote tallies are not released. All I'm saying here is that it is possible the Netflix distribution model might be seen by members of the Academy as a deterrent to voting for it. Or not. Again, we'll see.

I want to be clear that I, personally, am not arguing about the content of Roma or its validity as a film or Oscar entry. I think the film is fantastic and deserves recognition on merit. I am just observing that some Academy members may feel that Netflix does not deserve a place at this particular table if they aren't going to play by the industry standard release model.

I don't think it should matter how long they get them in cinemas for or what information they share about that. Those are just minor details that really are about financials.

The movie business is called the movie business because things like financials matter. You can't have the art without the commerce.

In reality, Netflix is the hero here because they are saving these pictures and getting them out there. I do not at all see Netflix as the bad guy.

No one is saying that is the case. I am grateful that they are giving filmmakers a platform. It is just a fundamentally different platform than the one which the Academy Awards were designed to celebrate.

The conversations which we are having here are conversations that need to be had within the Academy, so that they can decide what they want to recognize and what they don't want to recognize, and they have the right to make their choice, whatever that choice might be.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Roma and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs played in cinemas. There is no question this happened. I saw Buster Scruggs in a cinema. The Irishman is supposed to be released in cinemas as well.

So, they are all theatrical releases.

The Academy votes on what? The best films and best achievements in film based upon what criteria? On the criteria that they share and provide financial information about the film to the Academy?

Does it matter to the Academy if the voters for Best Picture watch the films in a cinema? No, they are sent screeners so they can watch them at home.

So, films that get a theatrical release but also get a streaming release are disqualified because?

It's seems the point being made here is they are disqualified because the company distributing them is not forthcoming with information about how many and for how long these films are shown in cinemas.

I am saying that idea makes no sense.

I know the French had a beef with Netflix showing films at the same time or shortly after a picture had a theatrical release.

In terms of the commerce side of things...

The fact is that filmmakers that are not making sequels or comic book films or some sort of Disney family picture have to go on a scavenger hunt to get funding. The movie "business" does not care how you get the money just that you get it.

Netflix is thankfully providing funding. This does not change anything about how the filmmakers go about making their films it changes how they get funding and distribution.

Theater owners want to show pictures that sell lots of tickets, popcorn, and soda. So, if you are giving them a choice between showing a Star Wars film or a Coen brothers film which are they going to want in their theater?

I think if the Academy wants to disqualify films by guys like Cuaron, the Coens, or Scorsese then they should add a category to the Awards for "Most Popcorn and Soda Sold during a Theatrical Run" as that would be a bit more revealing as to what they are giving prizes for.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Roma and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs played in cinemas. There is no question this happened. I saw Buster Scruggs in a cinema. The Irishman is supposed to be released in cinemas as well. So, they are all theatrical releases.

I never said they didn't qualify under the Academy rules.

The best films and best achievements in film based upon what criteria?

Their selection is based upon the preference of the membership, and they get membership based on their expertise in the field. I'm not arguing that these films should not be considered. I'm simply stating that it is possible that some members of the Academy may feel that a token theatrical release, in addition to a simultaneous streaming release, circumvents the spirit of the rule honoring theatrical releases. If they feel this way, it is possible that their distaste for the release model may impact the way they choose to vote. Or it might not. We don't really know.

Roma is eligible. Buster Scruggs is eligible. We'll find out when the nominations are announced how receptive to them the Academy is or is not.

 

[AshJW]

I hadn't seen as much films at the movies this years as I would have wanted.
But of the few films I've seen, wich are listed below, I would say that I liked "Ballon" the best.

- Star Wars - The Last Jedi (I know, it's from 2017. This was the third time I watched this)
- Darkest Hour (8,5/10)
- Red Sparrow (8,5/10)
- Solo: A Star Wars Story (8,0/10)
- A Star Is Born (8,0/10)
- Bohemian Rhapsody (8,5/10)
- Ballon (9,0/10)
Aquaman is still tom come on Dec 26th.

 

[Sam Posten]

Any best of 2018 list that isn't considering Into the Spiderverse is wroooonnnggg =p

 

[TravisR]

I hadn't seen as much films at the movies this years as I would have wanted.
But of the few films I've seen, wich are listed below, I would say that I liked "Ballon" the best.

- Star Wars - The Last Jedi (I know, it's from 2017. This was the third time I watched this)

I wouldn't put The Last Jedi on a 2018 list but I liked it so much that I may make an exception.

 

[RBlenheim]

My Bests this year (a few still to see):
ROMA
BLACKkKLANSMAN
THE FAVOURITE
22 JULY
UNSANE
FIRST MAN
ANNIHILATION
A QUIET PLACE
RED SPARROW

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

A Quiet Place is the only one on your list I've seen thus far. I hope to rectify that in the coming months.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

52 Directors Pick Their Favorite Movies of 2018

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Working on seeing some films I missed including Paddington 2 which is not exactly the kind of thing I check out but it got so many raves I am curious.

 

[Keith Cobby]

Academy votes should only count for films the members have seen theatrically and not on screeners. There is much doubt about whether or not academy members have actually seen the films they vote for.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Academy votes should only count for films the members have seen theatrically and not on screeners. There is much doubt about whether or not academy members have actually seen the films they vote for.

I think much of the time what happens is a film gains momentum coming into the awards season and then having seen it or not people vote for it...because they have not seen all the nominated works so they just vote for whatever others say is hot.

The awards are basically a joke and they have selected some pretty lousy films as "Best Picture" over the years.

 

[Tino]

The awards are basically a joke and they have selected some pretty lousy films as "Best Picture" over the years

In your opinion.

I think they have done very well historically in Nominations and wins.