Should VOD services be allowed at the oscars?

this. Spielberg is being a top kike here with his low heeb tricks to try and corner 'real movies' as only owned by his fellow tribesmen.

and why Yea Forums movies can't win oscars? if syfy or hallmark some day come up with a great oscarbait, aren't they allowed to compete like everybody else?

If you can't physically draw humans to a communal place of shared experience you are not in the movie business.

fuck jewberg and fuck netflix. If netflix is allowed then why not youtube movies? and streaming shit platforms. SJWs have ruined the oscars so might as well put the final nail in the coffin

BLACKED RAW

No. The Emmys have categories for TV movies. That's what they're for.

He's right. Netflix belongs at the Emmy's, not the Oscars.

>implying ytoids aren't the exact same

>implying jews aren't ytoids

Attached: FULL DWAYNE.gif (500x394, 231K)

Oscars literally have to accept Netflix movies to stay relevant. If Netflix is excluded they'll start their own awards that will supersede the Oscars

Spielberg has never made a legitimately good movie. He just wishes he were mexican so he could be talented too.

Cant netflix get into cinema?

>supersede the Raspberrys
fixed

Don’t usually agree with speilberg but he’s right in this case. These are made for tv movies. The reason they are on netflix is because they aren’t good enough to make it into theaters.

yeah, fucking obviously. There is literally no reason to disallow it unless you are making another eligible movie and want to increase your odds

>semantic
I think you mean semitic

expect its not about that at all. Literally no one is arguing that the problem is Netflix movies are less good than Hollywood movies and should therefore be ineligible

Netflix movies are tv movie of the week tier garbage

>The reason they are on netflix is because they aren’t good enough to make it into theaters.
no, its because Netflix gave them more money for distribution rights than Hollywood did

He's not even trying to "ban" Netflix Originals, he just thinks they should be required to do a proper theatrical run first like all the other nominees do, not some little one-week run on a couple screens that is done just so they can qualify on a technicality.

But they are lower quality, which is why they end up on netflix instead of being in theaters making real money

Attached: old_man_yells_at_cloud.jpg (1280x960, 586K)

Oscars already don't allow Netflix movies.

They only nominated the ones that got brief releases in theaters.

This is a non-issue.

Nope. Many netflix movies actually tried to get into theaters first, and failed

why it's okay for hollywood to constantly make low effort garbage yet it's a terrible thing when netflix does it?

Nah, bruv. He's the only one that's thinking long term. Old people always thinking longer term. The younger you are, the more likely you are to cut corners. The older you are, the more you realize that almost everything you lived for doesn't even matter.

the only reason there was ever a divide was because of hollywood jews trying to keep their product valuable

eh, maybe sometimes but they are generally funding them from the beginning

Because Hollywood eventually learns when cash reserves run dry, but Netflix has seemingly endless cash and never gets hurts by their fuckups

SO they should be ineligible for awards because you don't think they are as good

Surely if the academy should be allowed to present awards at all they can figure that part out on their own without the need of an explicit ban

you don't understand. he literally wants those banned too. he thinks if you commit to netflix you aren't making a movie, you're making a tv movie, even if your movie plays at a theater.

Because Netflix makes it for a little tiny box in your house, and Hollywood makes it for a giant screen people watch together. It's kind of like the difference between trains and cars. There's a world for both, but it's kind of silly to say that the ford mustang is a brilliant train. The oscars are for Cinema, and the Emmys are for TV. There's no reason why the Emmys can't have a best picture category. But if something is made for TVs, it shouldn't be compared to things that are made for Cinemas.

Netflix didn't make Roma though, they distributed it.

there shouldn't even be a distinction between TV movie and theatrical movies, just give the awards to the best shit

>hollywood eventually learns
on a scale of "needs a TA in class" to full wheelchair and helmet how retarded are you user?

if you think netflix and hollywood are making two different qualities of products you might need to buy yourself a helmet to save your precious brain cells as they are down to the single digits.

But it's very true. The formats are incredibly different. What works well on small screens does not work the same on larger screens and vice versa.

yeah, this is literally entirely about elderly hollywood people being mad at modern distribution methods

why would that matter to a hollywood boomer? he sees the words "netflix" he thinks "fuck they are subverting my child pedo ring friends wallets!"

It's not that they're making two different qualities of product, it's that they're making two different products.

nah, thats fucking bullshit, they are only slightly different, very minor variations of essentially the same thing

>Yea Forums suddenly defends greedy jews
what happened?

>the director of ready player one acting like he cares about the artistic value of films

Attached: de15df26e9bf61c4f5672a08dc60a50b.jpg (499x481, 28K)

>oy vey the goyim are making their own movies

Attached: DER-GOYIM-AWAKEN-SHUT-IT-DOWN.jpg (650x489, 112K)

>Members of the Academy, here is my movie. It represents my highest artistic aspirations and is the result of years of work and collaboration with hundreds of artists and skilled workers.
>But did it show in big room? On big screen?
>Well, no. It was distributed by Netflix, an on-demand serv-
>It not real movie! Real movie show in big room, on big screen!

Attached: disgruntled frog.jpg (423x396, 77K)

Should independent films be barred too if they aren't released in cinemas? Why should movies and their accolades be relegated by those wealthy enough to distribute it en masse to theatres?

This. It's like the diamond jews when they market against lab-made diamonds.

But it's not just a different distribution method. It's a different format. TV and Cinema have different qualities. Netflix offers the same product as TV, not as cinema. It is a new distribution model for TV, not cinema. Netflix belongs at the Emmys.

When are we getting an Oscar category for Best Camrip

Attached: 5TSGR0s.jpg (850x1104, 523K)

>he's actually defending cuckflix

which version is better?

Attached: old_man_yells_at_cloud_v2.jpg.png (1280x960, 1.3M)

No, they are fundamentally different. They are as different as a black box play and an Opera. As different as chamber music and Orchestras. As different as radio and and a rock concert.

TVs are bigger and better than ever, they are more like theatrical screens that traditional TV screens. You could have made an argument in the 1970s, but today you just sound like some boomer idiot

Its not a real difference, and only being suggested by people who have financial interest in keeping movies using modern distribution channels out of the award circuit

>he's actually defending the "integrity" of the oscars

>t. spielberg

Some of the better movies in recent times have been Netflix. Hollywood is shite.

I stopped watching the Oscars after HTTYD 1 got snubbed by forgettable garbage

Its like the difference of listening to music on a CD vs a cassette

Reminder Twitter and the MSM only care about VOD because "it's an outlet for PoC to make more movies". That's literally the biggest reason they're shilling it so intensely.

Attached: moe.jpg (640x691, 44K)

>I stopped watching the Oscars because a kids movie I liked didn't win
the state of this board

>if you're anti-jew, you're pro-netflix
nice pilpul hebe
hollywood is already fucking dead, I just want to accelerate the rate at which it decays

>the jew who started by making a TV movie is upset that internet movies are defiling the jew monopoly

Spielberg made great movies. The last one being 20 years ago

I saw HTTYD3 in IMAX the other day, and honestly it was a bit lackluster
I felt like I'd get better sound from my Home Theater, and the screen was dirty so that was a bit distracting

>No, they are fundamentally different.
Most movie viewing is done on TVs too. The only difference is how they viewing experience is marketed initially

Wrong. The cinema only exists because of the market for it. At one time it was the only way people could watch movies, and the screen was made large so as many people as possible could enjoy it and owners could therefore maximise profits.
There is no artistic distinction between watching a movie on TV or at the cinema. Why are all movies issued on physical formats for enjoyment at home? Have none of us truly "seen" any classic cinema since we didn't see it at a theater?

this
we gamers need to rise up and spread the chaos

they're literally two sides of the same coin.
kek this is the type of guy who watches capeshit at the theater and remarks aloud "man captain marvel wouldn't be half as fun at home isn't that right tyrone?" (his wife's son)

later in his head he will refer to super hero movies as the modern day greek gods as he lies in bed wishing he was the star of the new hot capeshit

It seems more like the difference between watching a movie at a theater as opposed to watching the same movie on your huge TV at home.

By the academy's own rules, all they need to do is the one week qualifying run in LA county to be eligible. If you wanted to make it JUST real wide-release films, you'd have to say something like 600 screens minimum also in New York and Chicago counties.

based spielberg is going to destroy blackedflix

The tribe likes it's nepotism. Wow, so surprising.

Attached: 1526450687608.jpg (657x527, 170K)

I really don't get why people have a a hard time getting this. Netflix is just being lazy and trying to horn in in the "prestige" of the Oscar, rather than taking the time and investing the capital to go the long game root and pioneer a streaming video awards ceremony. They might as well be complaining they can't compete for a Tony award if they go down this route.

Netflix is literally run by a Jew who is the descendant of the Jew who basically invented propaganda

>(his wife's son)
thank you for clarifying, I was imagining it was his wife's boyfriend

Youtube videos should be eligible for Oscars? No thanks.

yes

Attached: bbc.webm (936x480, 2.78M)

We're already talking about Netflix

>TVs are bigger and better than ever, they are more like theatrical screens that traditional TV screens.
The average person watches streams on a laptop or tablet.

sit closer to the fucking screen.

any actually data on this? Seems pretty unlikely that more people watch Netflix movies on laptops or fucking tablets than TVs? Who the fuck even uses tablets is it 2011?

or just stop being autistic tranny that wants to go piddle in the little girls room because he shaved his stubble yesterday and is wearing a sundress. Netflix should start its own streaming video awards if it wants to put on airs and win awards.

If it thinks it's the new Hollywood then act like it and stopping seeking the approval of the old system.

Exactly. Bird Box would have been a giant flop in theaters simply because instead of just tuning in for 90 minutes comfortably to watch a dumb high concept film, you have to get dressed, drive to the theater, spend a minimum of $6 assuming it's the cheap Tuesday. That's not the kind of effort 45 million Americans would make.

so if you sit in the back of the theater you aren't really watching the movie?

excellent tranny post, you sure changed my mind

I don't go to the movies.

go back to watching blacked

incel

>His maternal great-grandfather was attorney, financier, scientist, inventor and philanthropist Alfred Lee Loomis
>Alfred Lee Loomis (November 4, 1887 – August 11, 1975) was an American attorney, investment banker, philanthropist, scientist, physicist, inventor of the LORAN Long Range Navigation System
> his role in the development of radar and the atomic bomb contributed to the Allied victory in World War II.
Yikes,
Very organic origins for netflix, rags to riches story etc

Still haven't seen the Jewish connection you mentioned. One Greek, One military industrial complex nepotistic plant.

Attached: knower (3).jpg (655x527, 59K)

Roma and...?

Post-hoc ergo proctor hoc

No one looks at the print of a renaissance painting and believes it to be the real thing. Simply knowing that it is an inferior recreation of the original (at least in that it is not the original) frames the viewed object, the print, in a way that encourages us to look at it as though we were looking at the original. We know it's not quite the same, but we change what we are looking for in the object and start looking for those things we might notice if the original were before us instead. If we instead look at a print which is not a simulation of some other work, but is in fact the work, we treat it entirely different. In our hands it is a complete object. We make exceptions for the former that we don't make for the latter. If you have a wallet sized print of the Mona Lisa, you will engage with it entirely differently than you would a baseball card. The content of an art object is not simply the viewed material, but the entire communicated object, which often isn't present. Knowing that Citizen Kane was originally played on huge screens and involved cutting edge techniques makes us view it differently. It very obviously doesn't work as well on a small screen, where the scale of his wealth, instead of literally overwhelming you in its size, appears cartoonish and hollow. Knowing it was once larger, we view it as though it were larger. There are cinematic techniques and styles which are extremely potent on larger screens which are completely flacid on small ones, and it is only in our recognition of their prior cinematic state that allows us to appreciate certain sequences at home. A movie intended to succeed on a TV screen will be made differently to better fit that frame, which is it's original and intended display. When the cinema is an afterthought, only pursued for the technicalities of an award, so too will be the techniques best suited for the Cinema. (1/2)

at least movies have to sell tickets

Netflix can force-feed whatever it wants. it's bound to end up just as shitty as cable

face it, anyone can have a god tier style cinema now, the kinoplex is dead

Buster Scruggs

Amazon Prime has a few, doesn't it? The Neon Demon, Manchester by the Sea, The Handmaiden, and a lot of others that tried to compete for nominations. I don't think streaming services are the problem, it's their quality. Prime > Netflix in terms of quality, but Netflix holds quantity by an enormous amount.

Oh yeah, Netflix sort of lucked out there. Had the Coens gone to any other streaming service first they'd have the same film.

What anti-semitic thing did Netflix do? Something against Israel?

He's scared that hollywood's grip has faltered and is desperate to gatekeep his secret club

The oscars nominated black panther. So what is he talking about with 'standards'

>You're a tv movie
So was the lost world: Jurassic Park.

Polar, Mute, Sierra Burgess Is a Loser.

Beast with No Nation deserved its praise.

It's true the changing market demands shape the medium. The nickelodeon evolved into small projections in empty main-street stores, which evolved into purpose built cinemas which grew and grew until we had towering Imax cinemaplexes. But there was little love lost when the nickelodeon disappeared. And you are making two tragic assumptions--that the consumer is always right, and that this market change is happening under fair play. First, the latter: Netflix is not a profitable company. They, like most new technology ventures, are only kept alive by capital investment and stock sales. People are buying into these companies on the promise of a great future return. To achieve this return, these companies offer their products at an exorbinant loss which no competitor can survive, and it is only once they have capture enough of an audeince and destroyed their natural competition that they start introducing a cheaper product, with more advertising which consumers never asked for. This is not fair competition. It's predatory pricing, and is in fact illegal. And this leads us into the first thing--the consumer is not always right. This is especially true when companies are engaged in deceptive practices. Each year, Netflix offers fewer and fewer Top-class movies, and more and more self-produced content. The majority of the self-produced content is daytime television quality. If consumers were choosing between what Netflix is now, and what Netflix was, no one would choose it. This is especially true when you consider how Netflix has impacted cinema audiences. When Netflix streaming first started, Netflix was in primary competition with brick and mortar rental companies. People were still packing movie theaters in droves. But when you could select from the greatest and most popular movies ever made, and watch as many as you liked, for only $15 a month, people stopped going to theaters. Netflix has engaged in deceptive practices, and it's killing Cinema

ah-bloo-bloo

Actually, I struggle not to kill myself at night as I mourn the impossibility of ever having my virgin wife lie her head against my chest as we take in the incredible beauty and inspiration of The Passion of Joan of Arc.

That doesn't make the screen bigger Mike Yea Forums

Netflix should be banned period. Not just from the oscars.

if oscars wanna stay half relevant for the next decade, the only way is to accept netflix stuff. no theatrical release required
next, YouTube

It's funny. Old film distribution models are dying. The companies that would normally buy licencing for films to distribute them relied on box office numbers and companies behind services like Blockbuster, but things are changing. Dicks like Spielberg don't understand that times are changing.

If you're a young filmmaker, no big players will take a chance on your no name film, unless you go to Netflix or Shudder or unconventional distribution models.

As other anons have mentioned, the power grip is slipping. Less variety is being delivered through conventional theatres and distribution models. People don't actually want Oscar bait and capeshit CGI shit shows. Modern film is having a crisis, and Speils isn't making anything better. Plus isn't he involved in the death of a young child years and years ago?

Attached: 1551159091669.jpg (1483x1000, 227K)

>change is always good
Fuck off. Modernism is dead. The dark ages are almost over. There's no such thing as technological progress. Just let us keep the cinema before you die out.

What?

I'm not saying it's good, but change IS happening. What I'm trying to highlight is that, maybe 20 years ago, the established film community might have taken a chance on an unconventional $1 million film, but now, if you're not making focus group tested cape shit, good luck getting your film in a conventional theatre.

Times are changing, like it or not.

spielberger is a hack

>artist you loved has turned into an old curmudgeon
Maybe Tarantino has the right idea about stopping at a certain movie, before he gets too old and becomes "that director"

readThe primary reason studios have pushed in this direction is because Netflix has used anticompetitive business practices to steal marketshare. You can't make money off of anything else anymore, and audiences are too lazy and spoon fed from shitty TV content to make anything but the most heavy handed schlock.

Times always change. That doesn't mean you just give up. Cinema is still a young medium. Why should it die now?

Hmm yes yes, only great films like Black Panther should be nominated.

He's 100% right.

The cinema experience is about more than just what's on the screen, and traditional films have always been produced with that in mind. Netflix is making movies designed for VOD, not the cinema.

In order to be Oscar-eligible, films should have to have have a proper theatrical run. Just making the festival circuit shouldn't count, either.

The Qualifying run is remarkably simple:

>It must be more than 40 minutes long.
>Its public premiere must have been in a movie theater, during the appropriate calendar year.
>It must have premiered in 35mm or 70mm film format or in 24-frame, progressive scan digital format.
>It must have played in an L.A. County theater, for paid admission, for seven consecutive days, beginning in the appropriate calendar year.

The reason that Netflix isn't offering the same level of quality that it was a few years back is that it's no longer the only game in town. Amazon Prime and Hulu compete directly with Netflix for the exclusive rights to offer any given film on their platforms. Furthermore, the studios themselves have become savvier about what customers will actually pay to rent/buy a film digitally, and so many films that were once on Netflix are no longer on ANY service except as a paid rental or purchase. Netflix didn't set out to become what it is now, but has been forced into producing more of its own content in order to hang on to subscribers in the face of competition.

Yes, and while that worked in the past, it's probably time for more stringent requirements. Obviously, limited-release films still need to be eligible, but there needs to be a way to weed out material that was produced all along with VOD rather than the cinema in mind.

this is true, the people who make many of the netflix films are NOT Jewish, what business do they have at the Oscars parading around like antisemites stealing the spotlight from hard working Jewish people?

Attached: 1528427557382.jpg (600x444, 58K)

Look up the co-founder, retard

No, since they're not made for theatrical distribution. On the other hand, the Regular Show movie was elegible for a Best Animated Feature and he didn't said shit.
Netflix it's Jewish as fuck, don't be a fucking idiot.
Amazon actually respect the theatrical window. That's why no one complains about them.

>the people who make many of the netflix films are NOT Jewish
So it's not Jews after all who are pushing BM/WF?

Attached: 1538611463216.jpg (565x425, 150K)

Why do you even have a webm of a porn intro? What's the point?

fat and lazy americans are caping for netflix bc they literally can’t be bothered to move their bodies to a cinema. that’s all this is, and good for Spielberg for fighting it

ah-bloo-bloo

Which further demonstrates the hollowness of the argument that this is what consumers are choosing. The studios undervalued their properties, allowing netflix to gain marketshare over Blockbuster. At first, they didn't mind because Netflix wasn't seen as competition. Once they realized they could make more money, studios started changing more. Netflix could no longer offer the same product at a price customers wanted to pay. As they started decreasing the quality of the content offered and upping the price, people started to back away from the service. Then, using their demographic algorithms, they produced super cheap content tailored at core users. By this point, dvd rental stores had disappeared, with only RedBox as competition, which only ever offered recent blockbuster fare. Netflix, only making money from subscribers, has not actually broken even on any of their productions. To try and get the subscriber growth they need to maintain investment funds, they have put more and more money into production. They are now directly competing with box office films. Except, box office films that don't make their money back put production companies out of business. Netflix, as a production company, has never made a successful movie by traditional standards. They have only ever survived by offering a product at an unsustainable price. At first because they were fortunate enough to catch the studios undervaluing assets, and now through blatant anti competitive practices. If Netflix does not capture enough of the film going audience, they will never break a profit, and will go out of business. To do this, they would have to kill cinema. Remember, Netflix does not make more money off of more users. They only make more money off new subscribers. Once someone has subscribed, their revenue is fixed. If Streaming wins, There will only be a fixed amount of money spent on movies every year, and they will never push for a blockbuster ever again.

He’s been a fucking sellout since the Crystal Skull. Just look at The Post and Ready Player One (his most recent movies) and you can see they are fucking trash.

I'm mostly with you except for the bit about anti-competitive practices. What specific anti-competitive practices is Netflix engaged in? If anything, I've always felt that Hulu was the bigger danger on that front: there's always been the threat of Comcast and AT&T/Warner leveraging their ISP assets in such a way as to give their service an advantage, and now with Disney heading towards majority ownership, it's starting rather to resemble the vertical integration of the studio system of old Hollywood. As far as I can see, neither Netflix nor even Amazon represents that kind of threat to fair competition.

TV movies can be kino

(((SPIELBERG)))

Attached: 1548570427886.gif (200x200, 382K)

As the saying goes, even a blind hog occasionally finds an acorn. I've lost a lost of respect for Spielberg in recent years (especially since Crystal Skull), but he happens to be right on this issue.

The separation between television, streaming and film is completely arbitrary.

Cool it.

Attached: spielberg.jpg (700x394, 56K)

I’d like to see him say that to Scorsese lol

For a lifelong Hollywood jew it’s funny how he thinks 90% of films on Netflix aren’t actually produced by them. Netflix just makes a higher bid to distribute the film than anyone else

Netflix and streaming in general has shit quality. Netflix "4k" literally has worse quality than screened films from decades ago. I watched "The Favourite" recently on Netflix and the video had banding in the dark scenes. It's a digression, and the fact that Netflix is a proponent of such consumption, with entertainment a priority over all else, over appreciation of film as media and art means they should be banned from any and all awards.

Attached: spielberg.jpg (942x909, 93K)

It really isn't.

Cinema versus home is a thoroughly valid distinction.

He's not talking about films that go on Netflix after their theatrical run. He's talking about Netflix Originals that have been given a rudimentary theatrical showing just to make them awards-eligible, even though they weren't really produced with the cinema environment in mind.

I know what he meant. You didn’t understand my post. Or you don’t understand film distribution

Studios produce a film. Then they shop the film around to distributors to pay to put it in theaters. Netflix also bids on these films.

Good point. They don't realize that their passivity and false, liberal optimism up until this point has just enabled this to happen. Was only a matter of time. The TV movie point does hold merit and is just an extension of something David Lynch stated years ago.

"If you're playing the movie on a telephone, you will never in a trillion years experience the film. You'll think you've experienced it, but you'll be cheated. It's such a sadness that you think you've seen a film on your f**king phone. Get real."

>Studios produce a film. Then they shop the film around to distributors to pay to put it in theaters.
Except that it's not that clean. Usually the distributor is lined up before the film is actually complete, and sometimes even before shooting begins.

And the further difference with Netflix is that Netflix is not acting like other distributors. Netflix buys the rights with the intention of preventing the film from ever showing in cinemas (beyond what's needed to qualify for awards). If Netflix were giving the films a bona fide theatrical run no one would care, but as it stands.

Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region

Attached: lel.jpg (840x782, 124K)

Spielberg may be the wrong one to deliver the message, but the argument is valid.

What does that title even mean. Do they mean post-the movie? Or post-the concepts? Because the concepts in those movies have yet to appear. That journalist probably thinks a Vive is the same as the technology being used by the characters in the movie. What a moron.

Are you an esl eurotard?

Ready Player One is one of the worst major motion pictures of the last 25+ years and Spielberg really has no place gatekeeping the Oscars as some bastion of quality. They nominated fucking capeshit for best picture this year because there were a lot of nogs in it.

who cares about the opinion of some stupid old white male anyway

Are you just a tard? You didn't even address my arguments. Ready Player One was better than the majority of shit that Netflix pushes out.

I think every movie made should have a chance at an Oscar. If a syfy original shark attack movie is so good it deserves an Oscar, then fuck it, nominate it.

I will agree nominating movies just because people of color are in it is retarded. But then for how many years have movies won or have been nominated because they support the American military. American Sniper, The Hurt Locker etc etc. Spielberg wasn't arguing that however, and I already commented further above about their liberalism enabling all this shit up to this point.

Living room couch doesn't count?

Okay? There still isn’t anything stopping them from being better films. Not every single one of them is a rejected Hollywood movie.

Just because netflix hasnt made a good movie doesnt mean they never will

this shit is stupid, and another example of old media blatantly attacking new media just because they can

Not that guy, but in fairness your post did sound like you didn't understand the very clear meaning of the article's title.

Considering the majority of people probably don’t see these movies in theaters anymore it’s kind of wishful thinking to actually believe that they still have that cinematic magic they once had. Cinema is dead and desu selling experiences is what kills art. Sell ideas because those better the world.

Honestly I’d say they are the modern Greek gods and it’s just telling of how shitty things are.

>What does that title even mean
Yes that's very clearly stated at the start of my post.

Man we’re witnessing a modern civil war here. Jew using his peoples tactics on a Jew.

>There still isn’t anything stopping them from being better films.
Like The Handmaiden and Shoplifters on Amazon, neither of which would have been any less worthy without their token U.S. theatrical releases.
I can understand the Academy not wanting to be flooded with a shitton of movies from any source that weren't good enough to show in theaters, but they really should find some way of accommodating the major streamers, because they have stuff (and will in the future) that is far more deserving than shit like Black Panther.

Sure for phone and laptop streaming. But if I basically have a theater in my house why would seeing it slightly upscaled in a public place with loud assholes and sticky floors make it more special?

Oh, so you aren't fluent in English. So what's your issue with how that guy responded to you? You not understanding the title kinda made whatever other points you were trying to make irrelevant.

Don't forget the magic of missing a few minutes of the movie should you need to take a piss. That's all part and parcel of the theater experience.

>oscars
>good movies

Beasts of no nation

It was a shitty movie so they’re saying he doesn’t know shit about movie quality and shouldn’t speak up. Use some context clue Jesus Christ.

I think he’s a troll or just too worked up in a tizzy to make sense right now.

No it isn't. Literally just fags reeing because someone outside their pedophilia infested clan is making waves. That's literally all it is. Cinema has been terrible for decades and the oscars have never celebrated truly great films, just popular schlock.

best film of 2018 was buster shruggs prove me wrong

>what is Roma

>soulless nostalgia baiting slopfest was good

Attached: 2EB323BA-25ED-4968-BF23-11F29CA9FF92.png (400x349, 186K)

>indie games can't be nominated for big boy awards since they are made for a niche audience despite being as widely available as other games and playing like any other game
>they also have a smaller budget so they can't be nominated for shit because I say so
This is what you sound like
Fuck off retarded corporate fuck, your willingly denying people who worked just as hard if not more so to make something of worth as a big name studio

What defines cinema from home cinema?
Technically anyone can become a cinema, you can set up a projector in your home, business, at a park, etc.
You can invite people for free or charge for it.
Cinema doesn't even use film anymore, so there's really no difference.

So I don't see why distribution deals should define an artform.
Is a play not a real play if they can't tour in the major theaters?
Is an album not a real album if it's distributed online for free?

Distribution is business side, it involves financial barriers to entry.
It has nothing to do with the piece as it exists, a movie is a movie just like a song is a song or a painting is a painting.

Oh, and FUCK NIGGERS.

Attached: 1543857914795.jpg (1080x1349, 197K)

>It's a different format
How it's a different format you dumb fucking cunt? They're shot on the same cameras, edited on the same software, acted and directed by the same people, writtend and structured in the same medium

Attached: 4578468.jpg (1203x921, 154K)

all incredible shit

Hold The Dark

Beautiful Boy, Cold War, Suspiria.
Most good shit is on Amazon

>there needs to be a way to weed out material
Like simply not being recommended by the Academy? It's not like the Academy is forced to nominate movies, they still can flock only to the shit they like

it aint about good movies user, it's about the old guard of an industry fighting to keep things the way they are in a rapidly changing time.

Jew

Who wore it best?

Attached: Michelle_Carter5head.jpg (960x692, 84K)

Overrated