1. Create an account to join in the discussion. Once you register don't forget to enter our monthly drawings.

    Register to post on our forum.
  2. Home Theater Lounge will begin holding a live chat every Wednesday evening at 9pm Central. The goal is to get as many members online at the same time and just talk movies, music, and gear. You can join the chat by going to the Shoutbox app.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Dismiss Notice

Should a film require a theatrical exhibition to qualify for major awards?

Discussion in 'Home Theater Lounge' started by CJ, May 18, 2017.

?

Should a film require a theatrical exhibition to qualify for major awards?

  1. Yes - Films should be shown in theaters if they want to be eligible for these kinds of awards.

    3 vote(s)
    27.3%
  2. No - What does it matter?

    8 vote(s)
    72.7%
  1. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

  2. DYohn

    DYohn Well-Known Member Donor

    Top Poster Of Month

    The times they are a changing. No, it shouldn't be required.
     
    CJ likes this.
  3. Carl V

    Carl V Well-Known Member Donor War Zone Member Top Poster

    the Academy of MOTION PICTURES
    not film, not theater.....who knows,
     
  4. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    True, by that logic should a movie shot digitally be eligible to enter a film festival ;)
     
  5. Max Yokell

    Max Yokell Well-Known Member War Zone Member Top Poster

    I guess I am the only one that thinks a film should play in theaters to win an Oscar but I guess that just makes me different. :p
     
  6. Randy Rhoton

    Randy Rhoton Well-Known Member Donor War Zone Member

    I'm with Max on this. I think the word 'film' has become generic with advances in tech, but a theater showing should be required.
     
  7. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    That seems to be the antithesis of artistic merit. "To be considered, you must secure commercial distribution, the merits of your film be dammed!"

    To me that would be like saying to win an art award, your painting must be displayed in a for-profit gallery.
     
    Mikael Soderholm and DYohn like this.
  8. DYohn

    DYohn Well-Known Member Donor

    Top Poster Of Month

    Or that BOSE is superior to Salk since the former is sold in retail stores.
     
  9. Max Yokell

    Max Yokell Well-Known Member War Zone Member Top Poster

    Maybe it is the age difference , but when I was younger there was a strong distinction between movie theaters and TVs. You had Emmys for TV and Oscars for the movie theater and I know the line get blurred a bit now but for some awards I don't really care but the Oscars are about theater presentations.
     
  10. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    There are still distinct differences between a theater and a TV. But there are also distinct differences between a movie and at TV show. TV shows and movies are differentiated by factors other than where they're exhibited. And, even where there are crossover attributes the distinction is not at all blurry in my mind. Is any direct to video movie not a movie? Is Breaking Bad not a TV show since the final season was exhibited theatrically by Alamo Drafthouse? No, Breaking Bad is still clearly a TV series and Alladin 2 is clearly a movie even though it wasn't in theaters.
     
  11. DYohn

    DYohn Well-Known Member Donor

    Top Poster Of Month

    Age difference? Surely you jest (and I'm not calling you Shirley.)
     
  12. Randy Rhoton

    Randy Rhoton Well-Known Member Donor War Zone Member

    Carried forward, one could make a movie, email it to the judges and win something without ever showing it anywhere. Or have I missed something?
     
  13. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    Well, I'm not a fan of reductio ad absurdum. Saying on Netflix or in a theater are both acceptable is not the same as saying showing it nowhere is acceptable. By your logic, why not not even make the film, send nothing to your mom, and win an Oscar? ;)
     
    Mikael Soderholm likes this.
  14. Phil A

    Phil A Active Member Top Poster

    We are in the age when piracy is common. What if a film was released on a pay per view platform over the internet (perhaps the way CD Baby has its focus in new artists)? Should we let the movie studios determine what is worthy of an award?

    What about an artist making their own arrangements - e.g. Eagles Exclusive Wal-Mart Release is the Number One Selling Album in the U.S.
    Should the album exclusive to one retailer (or released as a download by the artist themselves) not qualify for a grammy?
     
  15. Max Yokell

    Max Yokell Well-Known Member War Zone Member Top Poster

    Dave,
    I was talking about CJ, I know you are older then dirt. ;)

    CJ,
    We have always had made for TV movies and they never counted for the Oscars before, but did count for the emmys. Now if you are talking peoples choice awards who gives a shit.
     
    DYohn likes this.
  16. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    But what has changed now is that made for TV movies were specifically made for TV, with lower production values, hitting a usually low budget. Netflix et al have changed the game.
     
    Barry_NJ likes this.
  17. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

  18. DYohn

    DYohn Well-Known Member Donor

    Top Poster Of Month

    I personally think than a Netflix/Amazon/etc. release of a feature film should be equivalent to a cinema release in terms of awards qualification. Indeed, a streaming release will reach potentially more viewers than will theatrical. But I also do not place a lot of stock in awards. They are fun popularity contests, but often have very little bearing on the actual quality of the work. They are more about what the industry wishes to reward and that is often more about"keeping up with the Jones's," Hollywood politics, money, influence, and "doing what's right (or expected)" than it is about the quality of the film.
     
    CJ and Barry_NJ like this.
  19. Dan Driscoll

    Dan Driscoll HTT Refugee Donor War Zone Member

    There are categories and awards for "Made for TV" movies and these have generally been defined to also include those made for cable or streaming. They have not included theatrical releases. Conversely, the Academy Awards (aka, Oscars) were specifically created to honor theatrical releases. The same is true for other mediums, including TV, music and stage. The defining factor is where or how it is presented. Oscars for film, Gammys for music, Tonys for stage, etc.

    If you blur those lines then you might as well merge the various awards. You could potentially have just one overarching organization for all entertainment mediums. Not sure I want to go that route. Not that the current systems are prefect, but that in itself is not a good enough reason the throw them out, IMO.
     
    Max Yokell likes this.
  20. DYohn

    DYohn Well-Known Member Donor

    Top Poster Of Month

    Dan you're talking about the Golden Globes I assume? There is a big difference between "made for TV" and "feature film." My point is it should not matter what distribution model is used for feature films.
     

Share This Page