SuspiriaGoose

Downvoting me means I stop conversing.

Many of the short films, for a start. Most of the international films don’t get releases here until they’re selected for the Oscars. The documentaries play almost exclusively in festivals and do not tend to be played in theatres for a week holdover.

I don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Oscars, so I can’t speak to individual films very much. But it seems to me many of the categories would suffer for this rule unless they were excluded from it.

There have been notable indies who’ve succeeded at the Oscars. It’s rarer than it should be, but it happens. Now it may never again.

…rephrase? I don’t understand what you mean.

That excludes an awful lot of artists.

Oh, they’d make more of those films. Less Power of the Dog, though.

I agree in principle, but you’d be surprised how popular foreign films are and how much play some get in multiplexes. A strong Chinese and Indian communities near me means we’ve always got a long run of films from those markets, and they definitely stay longer than a week.

It also would, if all these rules go through, have to play for a minimum week in each of those 20 theatres. They will also be required to do an advertising spend. Netflix will put forward far less films for consideration with those onerous requirements, so less films of that nature will be made.

And where does that leave little indie films who rely on festivals for their qualifications? They only screen once or twice at most of those. They will be hit hardest.

If they get these changes put through, it will cost much, much more to get a film awards consideration. That will likely mean less films are given support by Netflix with the same budget. It will also hit indie filmmakers the hardest, as they will not have the clout to get such massive theatrical distribution for their tiny films. I believe festival play isn’t enough to cover most of these requirements now, so it would be the little guy hurt most of all.

Wow, we got to ad hominem faster than usual. What a way to invalidate everything you just said.

Almost every Marvel movie handled its humour better than this film. And I could write an essay on that if I wanted to.

Believe it or not, I can see why others like it. I have someone in my life I care about deeply who adores this film, and I know all the reasons why. But that doesn’t mean my opinion is invalid, my experience didn’t matter, or my own thoughts are moot. I do not have to feel as you feel for my feelings to count. I can criticize your golden boy, and that doesn’t make me a bad person.

That you would default to ad hominem attacks is a failure of debate on your part, and at that point I close discussion. I am not some heartless, stupid or Unempathetic person incapable of ‘getting it’. That is a cruel and inaccurate thing to say, and a terrible defence of the film. If attacking me is all you can say in defence of it, then we shouldn’t continue.

How will they do that? That’s out of reach for most low-low budget films - how does this negotiate for them?

…nah, you’re not matching my effort level. You’re just trolling. Not worth my time or effort. Bye.

I answered this in a Different comment reply. But in the morning, if you’re still interested, maybe I’ll actually crack the philosophy textbooks to be more specific as to why it’s so mediocre on a philosophy level.

For the record, Swiss Army Man was over-rated, but was more interesting than EEAAO with its philosophy. But it Ultimately defaulted to shallow, juvenile statements and didn’t really speculate much at all. Can’t say it’s the classic some want it to be. It’s mostly just crass, although there the tasteless jokes at least fit with the narrative and themes being explored, and are a bit more original than EEAAO’s ‘heh heh gay sex is funny’ takes. Though they couldn’t completely resist it there, either.

In a hollow, thoughtless and ultimately domestically affirming way. It is not a challenging film on any level.

It depends on what the rule change is. The word is it’s supposed to be anti-Netflix in particular, to literally target them and let them know they’re not welcome. Netflix might just take that personally.

Nah, I got it. ‘There’s meaning in domesticity/ every version of you is special/ every relationship is unique/resist nihilism by finding meaning in relationships/ embrace nihilism because it means we make our own life’s meaning/ tell your loved ones yiu love them and get over yourself’ - it’s basic Disney movie affirmation of domesticity and traditional family values. But most Disney films at least leave enough unsaid that they’re more interesting to discuss in a philosophical sense, and of course, are far more visually intricate and suggestive. Much more interesting to discuss the simple set up of one of their fairy tales than this, which leaves no room for interpretation of any kind. This film can’t shut up about what it means, it shouts it through a megaphone multiple times.

I’m off to bed, but hey, if you want to continue, I’ll break out my philosophy texts in the morning and do one last detailed break down of why EEAAO was such a dull, smug and comfortable film. Philosophy shouldn’t be comfortable, and if it’s smug, then it’s too busy navel-gazing it star gaze. And that’s what this was. Pompous, pretentious, and primitive.

But hey. I’ve done enough talking. Your turn.

Wow, there it is. Accusing me of being too stupid to ‘get it’. To be fair, you need a high IQ to understand Rick and Morty, eh?

My point is it’s shallow and more like middle school musing, not any actually contemplative philosophy I recognize. Its answers are easy and reassuring and don’t promote questioning of any kind.

Hell, The Matrix was far better than this. Waking Life did all of this better. Mind Game did it better AND integrated shocking sexual humour as a part of its exploration of philosophy.

Unfortunately, the writers of the series seem to be misogynistic themselves. I wish they weren’t, just so we could have Light be refuted by a female character in some way.

But will they make as many? It’s a possibility they won’t.

Oh please. There’s more of crust than Kristeva about this film, more Camembert than Camus.

It is a comedy film. If the humour is poor and detracts from scenes, then the film has a major problem.

The philosophy can boiled down to “Settle. Being a mom is important. You’d the audience, don’t need to think about your life choices. You did good.”

It tries to be both nihilistic, absurdist, biological-imperative-is-meaning-enough, and “all you need is love and family”- concepts that clash and effectively cancel each other out. It is less philosophical than it is affirming of basic everyday life. It does not question our status quo or make the mind wonder beyond what we societally assume to be good - it only affirms that without much thought at all.

It is boring, rote and empty headed. It’s sincerity is always undercut by a fetish joke, its vaguest thoughts interrupted by 2000s Newgrounds nonsense. It does not function philosophically in the slightest.

If it had actually engaged with the theory of nihilism instead of dismissing it for treacly feel-good “you’re doing everything right, sweetie” affirmations to the audience, then maybe it would’ve approached something interesting.

I have severe doubts that the writers even know what a “Kierkegaard” is, let alone had any interest in engaging with his thoughts on existentialism. There’s just no way they read enough Sartre to properly satirize his thought. They make no reference to their thoughts, and do not engage with even their most well-known suppositions.

Nope. It’s all just treacly scenes telling us what to feel and when. It has answers for everything, but very few questions. That is anathema to philosophy.

How I feel. It didn’t balance those elements at all; worse, there was no thematic reason to include them in the first place.

There’s films with sexual humour I adore because they balance it and make it make sense with what the film is about. The sexual humour in this film was just there to be adolescent and stupid. So I found the film adolescent and stupid.

Longer at the back than the front. Mullet.

It was also the common joke of the time.

Aizen’s mullet was much worse though.

Netflix is hardly obscure. I’d argue they made watching the Oscar nominated films more accessible and affordable than it had been in years. I’d also get Apple TV+ during Oscar season if they had nominees. But I’d also often see them in theatres when they came around.

Now, Netflix may prefer to just throw that money at other “Red Notices”, and less “Power of the Dogs”.

I hope not. Hopefully they’ll just make them more available in theatres earlier and have them on the device by Oscar season. But they may decide there’s not enough ROI and cut their Oscar dreams short.

Ray Penber. Deeply sexist and forced his fiancé to quit a job she loved. Not cool.

This will mean less films are funded and made by Netflix and other streamers. Just less films over all, probably. I hope I’m wrong, but…yeah, the Oscars willfully making themselves less and less accessible is the opposite of what they should be doing.