New Oscar Rules

[dws1982]

Henry and June on a drive-in must be a sight! I can only imagine an NC-17 movie at the drive-in in my town, where the screen can easily be seen from the main highway that runs through town. I haven't been to that drive-in in years, and can't go now because my car radio doesn't work, but I like the idea of them.

A theater in Huntsville (a bigger city nearby) is doing drive-in showings out of their parking lot as well since their theater is operating at reduced capacity.

Theaters are also renting out screens for private showings. The going rate around here seems to be $100 for an "older" film and $150 for a "newer" film (defined however the theater wants to define it basically), for up to 20 guests. It's not a bad rate, especially if several people were going in together on it. Alamo Drafthouse got some publicity about their private rental thing a few weeks ago, but their deal was nowhere near as good as what the theaters around here are offering. (Most theaters around here that are doing it are not part of huge chains. They're either small chains or independently-owned. Cinemark is doing it...not sure how big they are.)

[Reza]

Haven't drive-in theaters been almost nonexistent for decades?

They're more common in smaller communities, as OG says. My town has had one for over 20 years: Only a drive-in for about ten years, then as part of a regular theater for the past thirteen or so. Again, it's mostly in smaller towns and cities. Although one of the indie theaters in Nashville has been running drive-ins out of their parking lot for the past couple of months with a lot of success. Theaters in Tennessee have reopened, but that one hasn't yet, so they've done two drive-in shows Friday through Sunday, and almost every one has sold out.

Drive-in theatres are such a quaint relic from the past but should be revived immediately, wherever available, to benefit movie lovers during this pandemic.

My last visit to one was in Jamaica in 1991. Watched the Kevin Costner Robin Hood and Henry and June.

[dws1982]

Haven't drive-in theaters been almost nonexistent for decades?

They're more common in smaller communities, as OG says. My town has had one for over 20 years: Only a drive-in for about ten years, then as part of a regular theater for the past thirteen or so. Again, it's mostly in smaller towns and cities. Although one of the indie theaters in Nashville has been running drive-ins out of their parking lot for the past couple of months with a lot of success. Theaters in Tennessee have reopened, but that one hasn't yet, so they've done two drive-in shows Friday through Sunday, and almost every one has sold out.

[OscarGuy]

While all three of the local drive-ins in my city have been closed for over a decade (and some longer than that), we have one drive-in a 20-30-minute drive away that has been operating for over a decade. In smaller communities, where there's less light pollution, they tend to be a bit more commonplace.

As to the theatrical qualification. The primary reason LA/NY are no longer the only areas eligible for premiers is that I believe theaters in both cities are still closed to the public. I could be wrong on this as I'm not sure how much NY or CA have opened up, but that could be one reason for expanding the availability options. Though, I am surprised that Dallas or Houston weren't included. I know that Miami is probably a hot retirement community for Academy members, but I would think Miami as the 42nd most populous, Atlanta at 37, and San Francisco at 16 would be less likely than say #4 Houston, #5 Phoenix, #6 Philadelphia, #7 San Antonio, #8 San Diego, #9 Dallas, or #10 San Jose might have made better choices. Even #11 Austin, which has a thriving film community, would be a better choice, especially after Georgia elected an asshole as governor.

[Big Magilla]

Haven't drive-in theaters been almost nonexistent for decades?

Yes, but they are making what is probably a temporary comeback in certain places.

[Greg]

Haven't drive-in theaters been almost nonexistent for decades?

[Big Magilla]

Link doesn't work for me, but here's the addendum from Deadline:

1. Films which are intended for theatrical release, but are initially made available through commercial streaming, VOD service or other broadcast may qualify by making the film available on the secure Academy Screening Room member site within 60 days of the film’s streaming/VOD release or broadcast.

2. Films may qualify with a traditional theatrical release, completing a seven-day run in one of six qualifying cities (Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco/Bay Area, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta), screening at least three times daily, with at least one screening between 6 pm and 10 pm daily. Additionally, drive-in theaters in these cities will now qualify as a commercial venue, however, the screening requirement will be adjusted from three times daily to once daily. Films that have a theatrical release are not required to submit to the Academy Screening Room within 60 days—It is optional.”

The first rule has been the case since the initial announcement. It's not any film that was first shown on VOD or other broadcast, just those that were originally intended for theatrical release but were switched to a VOD or other broadcast format due to the pandemic are eligible this year. If the film was never intended for theatrical release, it will not be eligible.

The second rule expands the territory for films with actual theatrical releases. The standard had been release in L.A. Now a five day continuous release in the five other cities named will qualify as well.

[anonymous1980]

Academy releases an addendum to their unique qualification rules this year.

If I’m reading this correctly, you can qualify your film for Academy consideration if you release it on the Academy streaming site within 60 days of your film’s VOD/streaming premiere and drive-in theater screenings now count.

[FilmFan720]

And here's an article which has a sense of humour which many people around seem to lack

https://babylonbee.com/news/academy-str ... ign=buffer

It is not only not funny, it is illogical. If the Academy were to take away Schindler's List Oscar, they wouldn't give it to Brokeback Mountain from 12 years later, they would give it to 1993's feminist manifesto, The Piano. Satire requires a semblance of truth otherwise it lays an egg - a rotten one.

Plus, it is based on a complete disregard for the actual new guidelines. Satire should also be based on, you know, making fun of actual facts, and not just making up stuff to make fun of.

[Big Magilla]

And here's an article which has a sense of humour which many people around seem to lack

https://babylonbee.com/news/academy-str ... ign=buffer

It is not only not funny, it is illogical. If the Academy were to take away Schindler's List Oscar, they wouldn't give it to Brokeback Mountain from 12 years later, they would give it to 1993's feminist manifesto, The Piano. Satire requires a semblance of truth otherwise it lays an egg - a rotten one.

[Reza]

And here's an article which has a sense of humour which many people around seem to lack

https://babylonbee.com/news/academy-str ... ign=buffer

[FilmFan720]

Great article from Chris Feil that highlights how lightweight these changes are...last film that seems to not qualify is Braveheart.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20 ... st-picture

[Okri]

Thank-you for your answer Precious. My thoughts are somewhat longwinded at this point, so I'll just see how the rules impact things.

[Precious Doll]

Firstly, of course you get to dictate what you watch - your time/money etc. And I have to agree - your viewing habits are gratifyingly broad

But I'm genuinely curious now. AMPAS has point blank stated that films nominated for best picture must meet certain diversity standards. Does that make you less likely to watch their best picture nominees post 2024?[/quote]

It won't stop me watching all the Oscar nominated films because it is something of a habit. However, I had been thinking of stopping of seeing everything that the Academy nominated and only seeing what I wanted to see or fits into my criteria for viewing a film. The 100th anniversary of the Oscars would be a good time to actually stop.

If I only saw the nominated films that actually meet my criteria for watching a film and being an Oscar nominee wasn't one of them I would not have seen Jojo Rabbit, Ford v. Ferrari, Honeyland, Judy, How to Train Your Dragon, Missing Link, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil and that insufferable Marcel film. I'd be no worse off for it either.[/quote]

[OscarGuy]

BAFTA already uses these exact standards in their Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer categories. So, it's not like the US is the first to use them. Mlrg, you're being willfully obtuse on this.