Understanding the film business / Awards

[jo]

Oct 25, 2019 11:15:39 GMT -5 jo said:

JoBlo.com is even more blunt on the intentions and the consequences on what seems to be a selfish move on the part of the House Mouse!


www.joblo.com/movie-news/disney-sentences-classic-20th-century-fox-films-to-the-vault

Movie News
Disney sentences classic 20th Century Fox films to the vault
3 hours ago by: Corrye Van Caeseele-Cook



Although John Locke popularized the economic concept of "supply and demand" in 1691, the concept itself goes back almost 2000 years. Now whether or not the good folks at Disney are students of classic economics is probably up for debate,

however they certainly know how to create artificial scarcity. The House of Mouse has been notorious for putting classics like CINDERELLA and SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS into their vault, releasing them again every few years, returning them to the vault, and then repeating the cycle. It's a strategy that's continually generated revenue for decades.Well it seems as if Disney is about to apply that strategy to their newly acquired catalog of 20th Century Fox films.

Ever since the completion of Disney's merger with Fox earlier this year, speculation has run wild as to what precisely Disney was going to do with 20th Century Fox movies. According to an exclusive story courtesy of Vulture, since the merger, Disney has repeatedly canceled previously agreed upon screenings of Fox films at multiple theaters. Furthermore, the company has also denied requests for new bookings to these same theaters. Their reasoning? Crickets.


Disney's latest move could be devastating for small theaters that survive on showing classic films like ALIEN and FIGHT CLUB in order to stay in business. I know of at least two theaters near me whose main source of income comes from screening old movies. Of even further concern is if Disney's ploy applies to physical media like Blu-rays and DVDs. Could titles like THE PRINCESS BRIDE and DIE HARD suddenly become unavailable for extended periods of time? As the Magic 8-Ball once said, "All signs point to yes."

It stands to reason that the company Mickey built is making this move in order to drive the public toward the new Disney+, where many of these 20th Century Fox titles may be exclusive to the streaming platform. Another possibility is that Disney just wants to exude total control over their catalog of films, much like an 80s kid hoarding his He-Man action figures unless someone gives him a chocolate bar.

I have to say this is an absolutely horrible look for Disney. People have been decrying this acquisition since the merger occurred and moves like this only serve to reinforce their fears. Couple this latest news with Disney's routine "block booking" practices and the company begins to look less like the kind hearted Goofy and more like Peg-Leg Pete.
Disney+ launches November 12.

Source:
Vulture, Collider

Is he saying that physical media ( DVDs/BluRays) will no longer be available to buy? For existing movies?

Or that no new DVDs/BluRays will be available for new movies? Horrible thought!

The House Mouse has become The House of Greed!


Jo

[jo]

The whole DISNEY+ strategy for the streaming business ( Very Long!) --


www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/bob-iger-bets-company-hollywood-s-future-streaming-1247663

[jo]

Presumably what could have been a very interesting roundtable discussions among the top honchos of the major studios & Netflix!

www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/hollywood-reporter-executive-roundtable-7-major-studio-chiefs-1250718

A little disappointing about the level of discussions - I was thinking this would be high level of introspection and future outlooks. Taste makers or simply taste followers? Or maybe the THR forum moderator was not skillful enough or intellectual enough to challenge the thinking and to probe into CEO insights?

I am most impressed by Rothman because he articulates like a true CEO, almost like a statesman. Gianopulos is also insightful. The others - er… I think they got into their positions by kismet!

Jo

[jo]

A film auteur speaks!

From The New York Times --

Opinion


Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.
Cinema is an art form that brings you the unexpected. In superhero movies, nothing is at risk, a director says.

By Martin Scorsese
Mr. Scorsese is an Academy Award-winning director, writer and producer.
Nov. 4, 2019, 7:00 p.m. ET

“It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever,” says Mr. Scorsese.
Credit...
Jasu Hu


When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema.

Some people seem to have seized on the last part of my answer as insulting, or as evidence of hatred for Marvel on my part. If anyone is intent on characterizing my words in that light, there’s nothing I can do to stand in the way.

Many franchise films are made by people of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself. But I grew up when I did and I developed a sense of movies — of what they were and what they could be — that was as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri.

For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves.

It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form.




And that was the key for us: it was an art form. There was some debate about that at the time, so we stood up for cinema as an equal to literature or music or dance. And we came to understand that the art could be found in many different places and in just as many forms — in “The Steel Helmet” by Sam Fuller and “Persona” by Ingmar Bergman, in “It’s Always Fair Weather” by Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly and “Scorpio Rising” by Kenneth Anger, in “Vivre Sa Vie” by Jean-Luc Godard and “The Killers” by Don Siegel.



Or in the films of Alfred Hitchcock — I suppose you could say that Hitchcock was his own franchise. Or that he was our franchise. Every new Hitchcock picture was an event. To be in a packed house in one of the old theaters watching “Rear Window” was an extraordinary experience: It was an event created by the chemistry between the audience and the picture itself, and it was electrifying.

And in a way, certain Hitchcock films were also like theme parks. I’m thinking of “Strangers on a Train,” in which the climax takes place on a merry-go-round at a real amusement park, and “Psycho,” which I saw at a midnight show on its opening day, an experience I will never forget. People went to be surprised and thrilled, and they weren’t disappointed.

Sixty or 70 years later, we’re still watching those pictures and marveling at them. But is it the thrills and the shocks that we keep going back to? I don’t think so. The set pieces in “North by Northwest” are stunning, but they would be nothing more than a succession of dynamic and elegant compositions and cuts without the painful emotions at the center of the story or the absolute lostness of Cary Grant’s character.

The climax of “Strangers on a Train” is a feat, but it’s the interplay between the two principal characters and Robert Walker’s profoundly unsettling performance that resonate now.

Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.




They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.



So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters.


That includes me, and I’m speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.

And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.

But, you might argue, can’t they just go home and watch anything else they want on Netflix or iTunes or Hulu? Sure — anywhere but on the big screen, where the filmmaker intended her or his picture to be seen.



In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all.

I’m certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form, or that they ever were. When the Hollywood studio system was still alive and well, the tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension that gave us some of the greatest films ever made — in the words of Bob Dylan, the best of them were “heroic and visionary.”



Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary — a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other.

For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness.


Martin Scorsese is an Academy Award-winning director, writer and producer. His new film is “The Irishman.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [e-mail].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@nytopinion) and Instagram.

Very insightful piece and written from the heart of true cinema artist! I wonder how he regarded LOGAN, if he ever saw it?


Jo

[jo]

If you love films...

This is an account of the night when Martin Scorsese was given the Kirk Douglas Award for Excellence. Most importantly, it traces his period of collaboration with many of film's great actors and co-filmmakers!

www.hollywoodreporter.com/rambling-reporter/martin-scorsese-urges-commitment-art-algorithms-1255113W


Was it a year ago when Hugh Jackman was similarly recognized? What an invaluable experience it would have been for Hugh had he been given the opportunity to work with such a legendary filmmaker!

PS A long time ago, Hugh's name was very much in the list of strong candidates for the role of Joe Gillis in the film adaptation of the SUNSET BOULEVARD stage musical. Not sure if they could have worked together then, but Martin Scorsese had expressed a number of times the desire to remake the Billy Wilder classic in its new musicalized version! A pity it never came to pass


Jo

[jo]

James Mangold ( who says he is more of a dramatic than an action director) delves further into what Scorsese has said about cinema and filmmaking! Very insightful! Some very pointed comments about big franchise action movies ( sensory overload, too many characters that there is no time to develop each character).


www.indiewire.com/2019/11/ford-v-ferrari-james-mangold-why-franchise-action-films-bad-1202189704/

[jo]

Another potential major upheaval in the movie business, as actual control of movie theaters may now consolidate with the big boys!

deadline.com/2019/11/justice-department-paramount-consent-decrees-1202789185/




A more pragmatic view of the potential ruling ?


deadline.com/2019/11/justice-department-paramount-consent-decrees-1202789185/

[jo]

The realities of Oscar campaigns and the deep pockets involved --

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-oscars-rarely-go-underdogs-anymore-1258854

Movies


AWARDS
Why the Oscars Rarely Go for Underdogs Anymore
6:30 AM PST 12/5/2019 by Stephen Galloway


A tighter awards window, lavish FYC campaigns and the return of A-listers en masse has limited the opportunities for indie breakouts and newcomers to reach Academy voters.

In the summer of 2013, word began to spread about a new film soon to unspool at the Telluride Film Festival and an extraordinary young actress making her debut in a major role. She was newly out of Yale drama school, was appearing in a lowish-budget period piece directed by a filmmaker on the rise, and the odds against her getting any recognition were immense — and yet six months later, she won an Academy Award.

Lupita Nyong'o's journey to the Oscars was fueled not only by her talent but by an awards environment notably more hospitable to newcomers than it is today. In the half-decade since her victory for 12 Years a Slave, you can count on the fingers of one hand the outsiders who've become serious contenders in the acting and directing categories.

True, writer-director Barry Jenkins won for 2016's Moonlight, but Mahershala Ali, who also took home a statuette for best supporting actor, was hardly a novice: He'd been a jobbing actor for two decades and found fame with House of Cards. Similarly, Olivia Colman's best actress win this year for The Favourite came after years starring on British television and onstage and was helped by her casting in The Crown.

At the 2020 Oscars, the chances of anyone without a brand name taking home a top award are slim to none. That's not because talent is lacking. Such actors as A Hidden Life's Valerie Pachner, Waves' Renée Elise Goldsberry, Honey Boy's Noah Jupe and Just Mercy's Rob Morgan have all drawn acclaim and yet none is in the serious awards conversation. Indie titles such as Kelly Reichardt's First Cow, Robert Eggers' The Lighthouse and Olivia Wilde's Booksmart once might have been must-sees, but few Academy members now feel compelled to check them out.

Instead, the race is dominated by A-list helmers (Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Sam Mendes) and stars (Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Renée Zellweger, Scarlett Johansson). The only genuine outsider, Parasite's Bong Joon Ho, has a long list of credits and is loved by cinephiles.




So why the change? Three factors play a part.


First, there's the tighter awards window. Last season's Academy Awards were held Feb. 24; the upcoming awards take place Feb. 9. That means campaigners have two fewer weeks to get their movies seen — and, with an avalanche of demand for screening rooms and guild presentations, fringe contenders get squeezed out.

Second, deep-pocketed backers have inflated the sums lavished on campaigns. Harvey Weinstein once drew ire for allegedly spending as much as $10 million on some pictures; now Netflix is spending four times that amount and has an awards staff 60-people deep. The streamer is also paving the way for Oscar success with meaty campaigns on precursors such as the BAFTAs and Golden Globes. Don't think that matters? Just look at Irishman star De Niro's visibility in the past weeks with Netflix's guidance.

Third, stricter campaigning rules mean a greater emphasis on in-person events. Big names (J.J. Abrams, Regina King, Margot Robbie) are hosting screenings for friends' films along with their own. A-listers such as Pitt and DiCaprio are taking part in Q&As. Even latecomers such as Universal's 1917 and Warner Bros.' Richard Jewell are using events with Mendes, Clint Eastwood and top studio execs to promote them, an option unavailable to low-budget contenders like Neon's Portrait of a Lady on Fire, which won a screenplay prize at Cannes.



One small-scale distributor says he's counting on his director to do shuttle diplomacy among groups of Oscar voters because he doesn't have the funds for anything else. "Our exit scores are incredible," he says. "I just hope people notice." Additionally, Mark Duplass held a one-man FYC campaign for his Paddleton co-star Ray Romano earlier this month.


Can anything be done to stem the rich-get-richer tide? Yes, say insiders.

The Academy could alter the rules for a supporting role, limiting the screen time an actor gets per movie. That would spotlight genuine supporting performers as opposed to stars.

The Oscar organization could also create an award for best newcomer, acknowledging performers with limited credits. In the past, it's bestowed special Oscars including a Juvenile Award to Shirley Temple in 1934.

Ultimately, the absence of fresh faces stems from a more profound change in the industry at large that cannot be finessed by the Academy: the disappearance of the indie film. With fewer low-budget pictures getting large-scale distribution and marketing campaigns, there are also fewer opportunities for outsiders to make the mark Nyong'o did.

The death of the underdog contender is about something far more troubling than the Academy Awards; it's about the demise of the underdog film itself.


Stephen Galloway
[e-mail]
@thr

That's why I sometimes take a cynical and/or pragmatic view of the chances of winning an Oscar!


Jo

[jo]

Interesting predictions or outlook from some of the movers and shakers in Hollywood and the entertainment industry --

www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/pain-gain-more-merger-mania-hollywood-insiders-reveal-2020-predictions-1263851/item/hollywood-insiders-predict-2020-my-bold-prediction-2020-is-1263854


Things that I find interesting that bear on the kind of entertainment we ( as audience) may like to have an insight into the near future --

KRISTA VERNOFF
Showrunner
Original content will make a comeback. Off the success of Knives Out, studios will remember that IP isn't everything. We can dream, right?

SCOTT STUBER
Netflix film chief
Musicals and international storytellers.

JAY ROACH
Director
Hopefully some exhibitor or company cracks the nut of keeping people in theaters or inspiring people to keep going to theaters — especially for comedies. There's something about sitting in a theater and laughing contagiously with other people.

DOUG WICK
Producer
The return of live entertainment — which, for talent, is dwarfing many more traditional revenues.

You may want to look at the other predictions - many involve the restructuring of the business and the delivery to the consumer. I am more interested on how content may be reshaping.

Original content, musicals, comedies, live entertainment!

Are Hugh's future choices leaning towards this predicted trend


On the other hand, do check out the the entire list ( 40 predictions) for a feel or the outoutlook on how the movie and entertainment business (to include TV/digital) and how the players are expected to change or move.


Jo

[jo]

Using the predictive ability of AI ( Artificial Intelligence) to help decide which project to develop ??

www.joblo.com/movie-news/warner-bros-may-start-using-ai-to-decide-which-movies-to-develop

Ha - why not just keep making superhero movies

[jo]

Emma Watts unexpectedly leaves 20th Century Studios ( formerly called 20th Century FOX)!

deadline.com/2020/01/emma-watts-leaves-disneys-20th-century-studios-1202846855/#comments

Deadline hears her departure today has nothing to do with being forced out, rather it’s just that the job wasn’t shaping up in a way that she saw was a fit after being behind such movies as current Oscar Best Picture nominee Ford v. Ferrari ($220 million in worldwide box office); four-time Oscar winner and $900M WW-grossing Freddie Mercury biopic Bohemian Rhapsody; the Night at the Museum franchise; the X-men series and spinoff Logan; Deadpool (which broke he R-rated mold on popular superhero movies); and the recent reboot of the Planet of the Apes franchise.

Post-merger, Fox Searchlight, now re-branded Searchlight Pictures, enjoys a lot of autonomy in the Disney empire, greenlighting pics they know and operating their own distribution, publicity and marketing teams. 20th Century Studios (which recently dropped the Fox) was melded into the bigger Disney fold, fusing all its operations.

‘Logan’ and ‘Ford v. Ferrari’ director James Mangold, Emma Watts, and Sir Patrick Stewart at a special screening of ‘Logan’ in 2017.

Watts’ departure leaves a void at present as to how Disney will handle the 20th Century live-action adult label going forward, this despite the fact they have carved out a slew of dates for product in the years to come. DreamWorks previously provided adult fare after Disney largely retired its Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures labels.

Some of the promising projects under Watts’ eye down the road are Ryan Reynolds’ upcoming summer action comedy Free Guy on July 3, and Amblin’s Steven Spielberg take on West Side Story on December 18. I understand the projects Watts had in development, i.e. James Mangold’s The Force, which just attached Matt Damon, remain active, with Ridley Scott’s The Last Duel with Damon, Ben Affleck and Adam Driver about to go into production. The next 20th Century Studios release, The Call of the Wild, based on the Jack London novel and starring Harrison Ford, just hit tracking today with a $17 million projected opening.




Watt’s departure rocked the town, with many prolific filmmakers and dealmakers she worked with sharing their praise of her:

Cameron told Deadline, “It’s hard to imagine Fox without Emma. Her creative input and support were invaluable on Avatar, and even more so on the sequels, She deeply understands movies, in her DNA — how they work, what’s wrong when it’s not working, how to fix it. I’ve always felt a strong creative synchronicity with Emma, and give her input a great deal of weight. It’s been great to have a strong, knowledgeable, and committed person as my studio head. And I would add to that list — friend. I can’t wait to see what she does next, because I have no doubt it will be big.”

Added Lightstorm Entertainment COO and Avatar producer Jon Landau, “Emma first came to Fox as a junior executive when we were producing Titanic. Over the years I saw her grow into a very accomplished senior executive who had the ability to balance the creative needs of production with the responsibilities of her studio role. This ability garnered her the respect of both filmmakers and studio executives. While I will miss having Emma as our partner at the studio, I am excited to see what the future holds for her.”

Said Spielberg today, “Emma is a studio executive in title, but a filmmaker at heart. Her support and willingness to take risks is what this business has always thrived on. I can’t wait to see what Emma does next and I’ll work with her again on anything at any time.”


“When it comes to studio executives, Emma is as good as it gets. She has an artist’s sensibility and has rightly earned the respect of the filmmaking community with the important films that she has brought forward. There’s no doubt that she has plenty of opportunities ahead of her, and I look forward to what she does next,” said Patrick Whitesell, Executive Chairman of Endeavor.

Reynolds tweeted out the following about Watts, who built his $1.57 billion-grossing R-rated Marvel feature franchise. “Deadpool would never have happened without Emma Watts. And certainly wouldn’t have been as good. I hope to continue working with her wherever she decides to go.”

On the upside, Watts got a shot at making a go in the new Disney-Fox, an opportunity that many senior-level Fox executives didn’t get. Heading into the merger last March, for example, it was expected that Elizabeth Gabler’s Fox 2000 would make the jump. Instead, Disney shuttered the label immediately post merger, with Gabler exiting.

Added Disney Studios co-chairman and chief creative officer Alan Horn and co-chairman Alan Bergman about her exit today: “Emma has made many wonderful contributions to Fox over the past two decades, shepherding a number of memorable films to the screen. We truly appreciate and thank her for her commitment and partnership in overseeing the transition in this past year and wish her the best.”




No word on Watts’ immediate plans.

Watts first joined Fox in 1997 following stints as a creative executive at Def Jam Pictures and later for Oliver Stone. In 2005, she was named EVP Production for 20th Century Fox. She has been the president of production since 2007.



Below is the email that Watts sent to her team.

Team,

I am writing to you today to share that, after much reflection, I’ve made the difficult decision to step away from Twentieth Century.

Over the past many months, it has been my top priority to continue to foster great filmmaking while leading this team successfully through the integration period with Disney. After reaching this point, I approached Alan and Alan, realizing that it was now time for me to pursue new opportunities.

I started at Fox 22 years ago — Titanic was in theaters, George Lucas had just announced his second Star Wars trilogy, and X-Men was in development. I was a young creative executive eager to learn the business, and from day one I was welcomed. Who knew that together we would add Night at the Museum, Bohemian Rhapsody, The Martian, Deadpool, Logan, Steven Spielberg’s upcoming West Side Story and, of course, Jim Cameron’s Avatar to the studio’s already storied legacy. It was a front-row seat to an incredible evolution culminating in Fox becoming a part of one of the greatest media companies that continues to shape our industry on a global scale.

Disney has an immensely gifted and creative leadership team, and I am so thankful to have had the opportunity to be a part of the expanded company. Even more so, I am deeply grateful for the time I’ve spent with all of you. Thank you for your dedication to supporting great talent and storytelling, and above all, for your friendship.

I’ll be here and available for the next few weeks to support the transition process.

All the best,
Emma

I am not surprised - after what Disney has been doing to the Fox legacy. From the tone of her internal memo, it seems she might have been intending to leave post-integration?


Jo

[jo]

The Hollywood Reporter has added more speculative reasons for her departure --

It's no secret that the transition has been difficult for the executive, who previously had dominion over the slate of a major Hollywood studio. Now, 20th Century may make as few as four movies for the big screen annually; there's also an increased focus on making content for Disney+ and Hulu. And Marvel pics, such as Deadpool, are now handled by fellow Disney silo Marvel Studios.

[jo]

The LA Times story --

www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2020-01-30/emma-watts-resigns-as-head-of-20th-century-studios-formerly-fox

It also mentions that The Greates Showman was another original movie that she espoused.

I do remember that she was an early supporter of the project.


Jo

[jo]

A photo at the Golden Globes, where TGS and Hugh were nominated for awards. Emma stands beside Deb.

www.thewrap.com/golden-globes-raising-one-last-glass-to-20th-century-fox-as-we-know-it/

There was also a photo of Emma and Stacey S with Hugh at the QueenMary 2 world premiere of The Greatest Showman.

[jo]

Very insightful article on the meaning of "Parasite's" Oscar win -- by Variety's Chief Film Critic Owen Gleiberman. Mr Gleiberman was the rare top critic who voted fully in favor of The Greatest Showman ( he knew what movie audiences are telling the filmmakers) --

variety.com/2020/film/columns/oscar-winners-parasite-bong-joon-ho-martin-scorsese-1203498265/



Interesting that the main purveyor of escapist entertainment, Disney won 4 Oscars -- but ironically only 1 was from its typical animation stable ( Toy Story 4 - the only award won by the movie among the other honors given by the awards community for animation). Three others came from the proud legacy of the studio that Disney acquired. Fox won 2 wins for FordVFerrari and 1 win for Searchlight for Jojo Rabbit. Yet, Disney seems to be intent on the complete downsize of what it acquired - what a waste of talent, both creative and managerial!

[jo]

Interesting conjecture on why THE IRISHMAN walked home empty-handed at the Oscars. The author posits that without the unusual experience of watching a movie in a cinema and paying full attention to it ( no choice!) -- the experience is no longer as self-satisfying when a movie is streamed ( because one has too many choices open to him, to manipulate his viewing experience)?


www.indiewire.com/2020/02/netflix-why-irishman-was-shut-out-at-the-oscars-1202210415/


Is this why the theatre continues to thrive? The experience of being in a room and being a captive audience member may actually enhance the experience of first-hand entertainment. A filmed HAMILTON is not the same -- it is a degree less -- as watching the musical at the Richard Rodgers Theatre!

Jo

[jo]

Very negative outlook on the film industry from the spread of the coronavirius --

deadline.com/2020/02/coronavirus-corvid-19-hollywood-studios-response-financial-impact-delayed-releases-china-korea-italy-global-international-box-office-1202867768/#comments

[jo]

When to show in cinemas and when to stream?

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywoods-new-dilemma-is-a-movie-worthy-movie-theaters-1283514

It looks like the perspective of the moviegoer is not taken largely into consideration

*There are movies that are enjoyed on a communal basis - not with your family but with other film enthusiasts!

*There are movies that are best enjoyed on a communal basis but with family - can you imagine the Opening Scene of THE SOUND OF MUSIC trying to blare out of even with your largest TV screen! Somehow it doesn't take you to that faraway mountain meadow, singing Do Re Mi with Julie Andrews

*There are movies that its scale needs to be displayed on the widest screen available -- take the excitement of the opening of The Greatest Showman ( as the full circus comes into view) or the grand entrance of Cleopatra into Rome or the descent of the alien ship in Close Encounters of the Third Kind or the excitement of Indiana Jones coming into view --

and even dramatic denouements --

or a great romance coming to its ending --

or the grand finale of the historical barricade moments suggested in Les Misérables!



Who would want to see those scenes of grandeur in the confines of a living room or a den or even a bedroom *rolleyes**rolleyes**rolleyes*

With possible interruptions (OK - press STOP/PAUSE), self-made or from external issues??


I am glad that I did not grow up and matured in the era of instant self-gratification...and trying to accomplish ridiculous multi-tasking. Maybe it is a generational gap ?? Ha!


Jo

[jo]

The issue they say is " P & A" ( Promotion and Advertising) -- which they say could be a minimum of $ 40 million.

But who created that expensive monster ?? The studio itself!

Sometimes those repetitive media interviews and press tours...and trailers & TV ads galore tell too much! No more sense of excitement or sense of mystery - you probably caught enough from the ads to make your own conclusion on the movie *rolleyes*

And because most of the filmmaking studios are now owned by media giants - they love that aspect of spending $$$$ to put up ads on their networks!

There were no such things a long time ago - and yet we celebrated so many movies at the cinema! Take a look at the AFI Roll of Honor -- how many required gazillions of $$$ to advertise. It is the own creation of the marketing people ( which I suspect is their own whim and making... and made them important!).

They can re-rationalize that aspect of promoting a movie... instead of putting us as automatons on a couch watching a great movie worthy of a cinematic screen.

Jo

[jo]

Endeavor ( parent company of WME and Endeavor Content) is facing a potential liquidity problem due to the impact of the closure of mass entertainment during the health crisis duration. Re Hugh Jackman - WME is his longtime agency and Endeavor Content has packaged a number of his film projects, including the sale of film distribution rights.

variety.com/2020/biz/news/endeavor-live-nation-sinclair-debt-pressure-coronavirus-1203538494/

[jo]

Changes in the Golden Globes Eligibility Rules --

www.slashfilm.com/golden-globes-eligibility-rules-coronavirus/

*BAD EDUCATION will not be affected here because they can probably qualify under the rules for TV shows/films, which is a separate category at the Golden Globes.

*But since we do not know the fate of REMINISCENCE - in whatever manner WB plans its release ( originally announced for a theatrical release in 2020, with no specific date)...it may be treated under these rules. Unless its release is moved to 2021.

[jo]

What happens to the movie business after the pandemic?

www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/as-a-virus-upends-hollywood-may-never-be-a-return-normal-1286691

[jo]

deadline.com/2020/04/oscars-academy-board-of-governors-rules-changes-coronavirus-1202918866/

Awardsline
Oscars
Oscars: Academy Board Of Governors To Meet And Announce Eligibility And Rules Changes As Coronavirus Continues Rocking Industry

By Pete Hammond

Pete Hammond
Awards Columnist/Chief Film Critic


April 27, 2020 12:49pm


On Tuesday morning, exactly 10 months to the day before the 93rd annual Academy Awards on February 28, 2021, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ board of governors will gather virtually to discuss and approve changes in rules for eligibility and other issues regarding the next Oscar show. It comes amid the coronovirus shutdown that has forced a rethink of plans from just about every corner of the entertainment industry.


The April meeting was originally scheduled for April 14, but as Deadline reported at the time was delayed two weeks. I am told that not just the Academy but also many board members needed some more time out before proceeding. Following the Tuesday meeting, AMPAS will provide the answers to what the press, until now, has only been able to speculate on, like one click-bait headline over the weekend that asked, “Will The 2021 Oscars Be Cancelled?”



Sources tell me to expect not just eligibility changes (especially in light of all the ways movies are currently debuting directly on VOD and streaming platforms such as Netflix) but also likely some surprising and significant changes regarding categories themselves. What these changes will be are anyone’s guess, but due to the exodus entirely of many films from the 2020 release calendar, and perhaps several others currently weighing options to switch to VOD and streaming rather than first going theatrical (Judd Apatow’s The King of Staten Island was just announced as the second Universal film to skip theatrical and go straight to VOD, following Trolls World Tour, and Sony sold Seth Rogen’s latest to HBO Max), these changes are by anyone’s account necessary, and depending on world events out of everyone’s control may not even be enough. In that regard, I am told all the answers likely won’t come tomorrow as this is a fluid situation.



When first asked last month about making any alterations to its normally stringent requirements of eligibility — for most categories a consecutive seven-day run in a theater in Los Angeles County — the Academy issued a statement portending flexibility. “We are in the process of evaluating all aspects of this uncertain landscape and what changes may need to be made. We are committed to being nimble and forward-thinking as we discuss what is best for the future of the industry and will make further announcements in the coming days,” an Academy spokesperson said.




Now, nearly six weeks later, we are on the verge of getting the first concrete word since that lone statement. And indeed AMPAS officials have been working this entire time to come up with a plan. When you consider that the next Oscars are so far away — set nearly a full year after COVID-19 first shut down the industry and the country — you would think they probably in theory would not be severely affected. After all, the Television Academy has a much more pressing issue with the Primetime Emmys scheduled for September 20 (with two Creative Arts Emmys ceremonies the week before) and have made no public statement about canceling or, more likely, altering the format other than some relatively minor eligibility and rules tweaks of their own.


The New York TV Academy did experiment with a virtual live-streamed Emmy ceremony that seemed to go well this past weekend, and you have to believe that the TV Academy is looking at a new-age kind of format ahould an Emmy show as usual not be possible. I would imagine every awards-giving organization is probably trying to come up with some emergency blueprint to stay on course, as it were. For instance, ABC broadcasts the Oscars and is currently showing with its series American Idol that it is possible to take a live TV event and re-imagine it without taking a ratings hit. The NFL did it with the drafts last week and, if you ask me, actually made it work better than the previous format. Something similar down the road is needed to keep the Oscars on track if a re-occurrence in the of COVID-19 outbreaks in the fall or winter forces a change in plans. A virtual Oscars? Hmmmmm. Let’s hope though for the sake of the world and human life it doesn’t have to come to that, and our lives are closer to normal by then. The Academy proved recently with its $6 million contribution to the Actors Fund, Motion Picture & Television Fund and its own foundation to help those most in need at this time that some things take precedence, even over what happens with the Oscars.


Nevertheless, the Academy Awards are enormously important in terms of encouraging the making of movies good enough to be nominated and win (coronavirus cannot destroy egos in this town). The big picture of what films will look like continues to be a pressing question that affects every aspect of the so-called awards season, which is supposed to begin in September with the fall film festivals in Venice, Telluride, Toronto, New York, etc. Actually, as last year proved with Parasite winning the Palme d’Or and then becoming the first film since Marty in 1955 to also eventually take the Best Picture Oscar, it really could begin at Cannes. But that now-twice-postponed 2020 edition that was to have started three weeks from now is looking to be a shell of its normal self when it figures out how to proceed if at all, and what effect that will have on the contest for Oscar’s International Feature Film category is another question with which the Academy likely is grappling. Venice, in one of the hardest hit places in the world, is determined to do something, but will it have its usual importance to the Oscar race itself? The same goes for Telluride and Toronto and what impact they can have, but it doesn’t seem likely to be business as usual. It’s all speculation at this point, but that is what we are left with as April turns to May.



No matter what changes are made for the Oscars, it still comes down to the movies themselves and, unless the changes being approved by the board are beyond anyone’s experience in the entire history of the Academy, how they can get into theaters. The AMC exhibition chain for one has said it will not reopen until there is major studio product to show — and that means by all accounts Warner Bros’ still hoped-for and planned July 17 release of Christopher Nolan’s Tenet. Nolan is one of the industry’s biggest cheerleaders for the theatrical experience, and if this can happen on schedule we may be on the road to recovery and an Oscar season we might recognize. It could also help propel Nolan’s new film (still sight unseen, mind you) into the race as the first real Best Picture contender.


It might be helpful to remember that even with all this speculation of how ever-changing events will affect an Oscar show 10 months away, last year the first of what would become nine Best Picture nominees, Once Upon a Time In Hollywood , didn’t even open until July 26, three months from where we are right now. And the other eight nominees didn’t begin their theatrical runs until October. Let’s look on the bright side.

[jo]

Unbelievable that it can happen to the almighty Mouse House!


www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-gets-analyst-downgrade-unrivaled-earnings-risk-pandemic-1293056

[jo]

www.hollywoodreporter.com/bookmark/will-smith-adam-sandler-how-sony-suffered-collapse-a-list-star-book-excerpt-1088418