James Cameron’s Anti-Netflix plan will be a complete disaster

By Chris SnellGrove | Being published 11 seconds ago

Since 2019, Netflix has been receiving consideration from the Academy Aravery Aravery for its films even though they are almost completely broadcast. To gain consideration, broadcasters often release these films into theaters for a lower number of days than the Academy requires.

It’s still a rope The director James Cameron has recently opened that Netflix films should not receive OSCAR consideration unless they have at least some theaters, but his plan will be a complete disaster that many competing films can be written.

Throwing down the gauntlet

Cameron lowered his white heat The village with Matthew Belloni Podcast, declaring that “the Academy Awards mean nothing to me if they don’t mean acting.” To say that the Academy has been bloated, and I think it’s terrible, “Cameron went on to explain what he sees as a good setback for Netflix if the stream wants its films to be eligible for the Academy Awards. “They should be allowed to compete when they release a movie to release it meaningfully in 2,000 theaters a month.”

At first glance, this may sound like a good idea, especially for those who like to go to the theater. The theater industry has suffered a lot in recent years, and as James Cameron pointed out in the Podcast, Tedflix CO-CEO Ted Sarandos continued to say that “The theater is dead.” Many consider this and other streaming services to be responsible for the Dwindel Box office numbers, so it seems fair to require Netflix movies to compete with other movies for the Academy Awards.

Punishing the Indies

However, if Cameron’s vision becomes a real educational need, it will have to work on just Movies and not just those from Netflix. That means that any movie that wanted to win an Oscar should not be in theaters for at least one month. This will, simply put, write most of the indie films (which tend to be short by running in several theaters) from the Oscar.

And, even if Netflix is ​​really to blame, the fact remains that fewer people go to the movies these days than ever before. Heck, October had the lowest box office receipts Hollywood has ever seen three decades. When a movie (even a good movie) is underPlerforms, it gets released in theaters, which makes it more difficult with a theatrical run to last at least one month.

A perfect storm

This creates a kind of perfect storm that reveals how the camera system will actually explode over many smaller films. Historically, some of these smaller films have really impressed Academy voters: Best Picture winner Moonlightfor example, playing in just over 1,500 theaters, far less than Cameron-Theatre’s camps. Another great photo winner, 12 years a slavewould have been accepted by Cameron because it was “only” shown in more than 1,100 theaters during its run.

Under Cameron’s plan, the movies likely to receive Academy Award consideration would be well-funded films like (no surprise here) avatars. Also, we already live in a world where almost every movie is a sequel, prequel, or remake. Would we indeed Want to make things worse by ensuring that most of the big franchises (like, God help us, the Marvel Cinematic Universe) can compete for Hollywood’s biggest awards?

I’m a lifelong fan of James Cameron, and I honestly think he’s one of the most visionary directors in Hollywood, but his proposal for the OSCARS completely bonuses. It can punish small filmmakers and simply promote his films, all while referring to a company rich enough to work on any sports needs. Although it is not perfect, it would be very easy to maintain the current academy system, where a good movie (yes, even if it appeared in the broadcast that is used mostly for titles) can compete for titles like best picture.

---